get_post

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits like read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. It does not; it only lists output fields. The absence of any mention of side effects or failure modes leaves the agent without critical context, especially since the operation is likely a read but is never stated.

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, focused sentence that includes the essential information without any redundant phrases or filler. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 get operation with one parameter, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the object type and the fields returned. It does not mention error responses or edge cases, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to know what to expect.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (post_id) with an example and format. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a single post' and enumerates the specific data returned (views, forwards, reactions, text). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_post_stats or get_channel_posts, which focus on aggregates or channel-level data.

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 implies when to use the tool—when details of one specific post are needed—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it falls to implied usage rather than explicit direction.

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