Get post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention any behavioral traits like potential errors, performance implications, or authentication needs. It does state the return structure implicitly ('with its accounts... and media'), adding some context, but it omits the exact return format and whether the response is nested or flat. This is a slight gap for a read operation with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and key content. There is no filler, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete for a read operation. It covers the return scope (accounts and media) but does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential errors, which would be helpful but are not critical for this simple fetch. Overall, it is adequate and nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameter 'postId'. While the description refers to 'one post' and implies the postId identifies it, it does not explicitly state that 'postId' is the unique identifier or provide any format details. This is a baseline for a single obvious parameter, but it does not go beyond the schema's minimal definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one post'), and specifies the return scope ('with its accounts... and media'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts. However, it does not explicitly name what it is not (e.g., not fetching comments or analytics), though the mention of accounts and media sets it apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single post's details, which is the natural alternative to list_posts, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_post_analytics or list_comments. Context is clear from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternate routes are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.