Get Taisly Post Status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by decoding the response path data.result[].status and explaining PENDING/SUCCESS/FAILED, which tells the agent the call is pollable and when the operation has reached a terminal state.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the identity of the call is front-loaded and the status-code decoding follows. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return-value semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs for this read tool. It omits edge behavior (unknown id, partial platform failures, retry cadence), which keeps it just short of fully 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 100%, and the schema already documents both id and historyId including that historyId is an alias. The description repeats the historyId key but adds no format, example, or clarification of the id/historyId aliasing, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (per-platform status for a Taisly post) and lookup key (historyId). It is readily separable from taisly_posts_list and taisly_posts_create because the resource is the status of one post rather than the post collection or a new post.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'by historyId' plus the schema note that historyId comes from taisly_posts_create signals this is a follow-up/polling call, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. after create, or to poll until terminal) or what alternatives exist. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the workflow.

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