get_poster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates a read-only operation ('Return') and lists the complete set of returned data categories, though it does not elaborate on the structure of the content or any error/edge-case behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with every phrase adding information about the tool's purpose or return payload. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 has no output schema, the description does a good job listing the key return categories (metadata, content, theme, HTML, CSS, paths). It could be more complete by explaining the return shape or error behavior, but for a single-ID retrieval tool this is reasonably 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?

With only one parameter (posterId) and no schema-level description, the description adds minimal semantic context by implying posterId selects a single archived poster. It does not indicate how the ID is formatted or where it comes from, so the parameter semantics are only partially clarified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one archived poster'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata, structured content, theme, HTML, CSS, and local archive paths. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_posters, render_poster, and create_poster/update_poster.

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 use case is implied: call with a posterId to retrieve that poster's full archived data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_posters or render_poster, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implicit.

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