velog_get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves '전체 내용' (entire content) which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/content is returned. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't provide enough context about authentication requirements, return format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves content, the agent needs more information about what 'entire content' includes and any access constraints.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description ('포스트 URL slug'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('가져옵니다' - fetches/retrieves) and resource ('특정 Velog 포스트의 전체 내용' - entire content of a specific Velog post). It distinguishes from siblings like velog_list_posts (list vs get specific) and velog_update_post (update vs retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from velog_draft_post or velog_publish_post in terms of content access.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when you'd use velog_get_post instead of velog_list_posts (specific post vs listing), nor does it indicate any prerequisites like authentication requirements or when this tool should not be used. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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