moltbook_get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it 'Returns: Full post with title, content, author, score, comment count, timestamps,' which adds some context about output format, but doesn't cover error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more concise by integrating with the main sentence without separate headings.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. However, it lacks behavioral transparency details like error cases or authentication, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it specifies that 'post_id' is a 'UUID' (clarifying format) and explains what the parameter is for ('The post UUID'). With schema description coverage at 0% (no schema descriptions) and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could note UUID format constraints more explicitly.

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 specific action ('Get a single post') and resource ('by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'moltbook_get_feed' (multiple posts) or 'moltbook_get_comments' (comments). The verb 'Get' is precise and unambiguous for a retrieval operation.

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 usage when you need a specific post by its ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'moltbook_get_feed' for multiple posts or 'moltbook_search' for broader queries. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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