get_saved_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool retrieves cached data and lists the returned fields, but does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether 'cached' means potentially stale data. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that gets to the point immediately, with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the purpose and parameter meaning, and the output schema exists. It lacks guidance on alternatives and edge cases, but is otherwise adequate. The lack of annotations and minimal behavioral info reduces completeness.

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 provides only the name 'url_or_id' with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully explains the parameter by stating retrieval 'by URL or local ID.' This compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource ('full cached post details') and the key attributes (timestamps, content) and input method (URL or local ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_post_content.

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 the use case (needing full cached post details with timestamps and content) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_post_content or search_saved_posts. No exclusions are given, so it's the minimal viable guidance.

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