get_post_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses caching behavior, the fetch source (window._preloads blob), text conversion process, auth requirements, and failure mode with a suggested remediation. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure for a read tool, covering side effects and edge cases.

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 compact yet detailed, with three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and failure handling. The second sentence is long and clause-heavy, but every piece of information earns its place given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 the tool's complexity, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is remarkably complete. It covers caching, extraction method, auth prerequisites, and failure handling with a user- actionable next step. Nothing critical is omitted for an agent to invoke this tool safely and effectively.

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 has zero descriptions, but the tool description explicitly explains force_refetch semantics (overrides cached content) and implies url_or_id identifies the saved post. While the exact format for url_or_id isn't specified, the parameter name and context are sufficiently self-explanatory for an agent. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of detail.

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 fetches a saved post's full content, cleaned and formatted for LLM consumption. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like list_saved_posts or get_saved_post, which likely handle metadata or listings.

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 establishes clear context: use when you need the full content of a saved post, with prerequisites (authenticated session) and caching behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, but the purpose is unambiguous and the troubleshooting tip for failed fetches adds practical guidance.

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