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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that results are recent and limited by the limit parameter, but does not describe ordering, output shape, pagination, or any side effects, which is a notable gap for a tool with no 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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the resource and the limit semantics efficiently.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core invocation adequately. However, the 'dynamic wall' concept is unexplained, and there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or how this tool relates to sibling feed-like alternatives.

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 an integer 'limit' with a default of 10 and 0% description coverage. The description's '最近 limit 条' gives meaning to the parameter as the number of recent entries to return, adding value over the bare schema.

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 states it lists resident feeds ('住客动态') limited to the recent 'limit' entries, making the resource and scope clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like agents_list and board_list, though the verb is carried mainly by the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use feeds_list versus sibling tools such as board_list or resident_profile. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate routing.

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