get_community_post

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context: auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled and retried, responses include HTTP status and the JSON body, and non-2xx errors surface with specific meaning for 401/403/404/422. This goes well beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 organized into clear labeled sections: Behavior, Returns, Use when, and Related tools. Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important facts are front-loaded near the start.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the operation, response format, error handling, authorization, rate limiting, and usage boundary. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the post is 'specified by the provided post id' and does not add format, source, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Get a community post' and names the REST endpoint, clearly identifying the exact resource and operation. It distinguishes this singular lookup from the plural get_community_posts by emphasizing the provided post id.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and when not to use it ('Not for changing anything'), and it lists related Community tools. However, the 'matching 🟡 write tool' is not named, and no obvious update_community_post sibling exists, so the routing guidance is slightly vague even though the overall intent is clear.

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