get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notes that image attachments are returned inline and PDF text is extracted, which is helpful. However, it omits information about authentication, error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the response beyond what is mentioned.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. The second paragraph adds behavioral detail. The 'Args:' line is somewhat redundant with the schema but still adds context. Overall, it is efficient.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers key return elements (body, comments, attachments with inline rendering) but lacks detail on field names, format, or error cases. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 only parameter 'feed_id' is well explained: it identifies the post and references where to find it (get_feeds results). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type.

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 it retrieves full details of a specific post, including body text, comments, and attachments. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_feeds (which lists feeds) by specifying the depth of detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_conversation, which could overlap.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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