get_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description properly aligns with that. It adds value by specifying that the response includes HTML and markdown content, but does not mention other behavioral traits such as rate limits or required scopes. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and content format. It is efficient with no wasted words.

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 read tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint, the description adequately covers the core functionality and return content format. However, it does not specify other return fields (e.g., metadata, author), which might be useful but not critical. The tool is contextually complete enough for most agents.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the only parameter 'postId'. The tool description merely echoes 'by its ID', adding no new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate further, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'a single post', and the identifying criterion 'by its ID'. It also notes the format of the returned content (HTML and markdown), which differentiates it from listing or mutation tools. No ambiguity.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_posts or get_post_generation_status. The purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage when a specific post's full content is needed, but no exclusion criteria or context is given.

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