Get Thread Post Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating that it returns metrics. It could disclose authentication needs or restrictions about the media_id being from the user's own account, but the annotations carry the burden.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args/Returns sections. Every word is informative, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is mostly adequate. However, it fails to describe the structure of the return value ('Metric values for the post' is vague), and it does not mention the response_format parameter, which controls output style. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions in schema). The description adds value by listing the available metrics options (views, likes, etc.) for the 'metrics' parameter, which is not fully detailed in the schema. It also clarifies that media_id is a 'Threads media ID'. However, it omits mention of the response_format parameter, which is described in 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 starts with 'Gets performance metrics for a specific Threads post', clearly stating the verb (Gets), the resource (performance metrics), and the scope (specific Threads post). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like threads_get_post (post content) and threads_get_user_insights (user metrics).

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 provides clear context by stating the tool's purpose upfront. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the specific verb and resource make the intended usage obvious. The sibling tools have distinct names, so confusion is unlikely.

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