post_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read operation and lists returned content, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, error behavior, or side effects, which would be useful for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names both the operation and the key fields returned, making every word informative.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the required input and what the caller will receive. Minor gaps around auth or error conditions exist, but the low complexity keeps them from being critical.

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, post_id, is already documented in the schema as 'Post ID', and the description merely echoes 'by its ID' without adding format, source, or validation context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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?

States a specific action, 'Get a single post by its ID', and clearly identifies the response scope ('full details including assets, tags, notes, and allowed actions'). The singular, ID-based framing distinguishes it from siblings like posts_list.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as posts_list or channel_get. It implies single-post retrieval but never states exclusions or selection criteria.

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