mattermost_get_post

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

The '唯讀操作' (read-only) clause simply restates what readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declare, so it earns little credit. What it does add is that the response payload includes channel_id and root_id, which is useful given there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid or unknown post IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter, but nothing written is wasteful.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and partially covers the return shape. It is still incomplete on the postId format and on authentication expectations, which matter for an openWorld tool that requires a logged-in session.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter postId, and the description never explains or even mentions it. The only guidance on format is the 26-character lowercase pattern buried in the JSON schema, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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 names a specific verb and resource ('取得單則訊息' — retrieve a single post) and clarifies it returns channel_id and thread root_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mattermost_get_thread and mattermost_search_posts, though those alternatives are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known post rather than browsing a thread or searching. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus mattermost_get_thread or mattermost_search_posts, and no mention of prerequisites such as being logged in.

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