The product timeline: what the growth agent and the founder already did and why (drafts, ships, skips, scans, observations, decisions with their rationale), newest first. Read before acting so you never redo recent work. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many entries to return (1 to 200, default 50). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds contextual value: the timeline is newest-first, includes rationale, and is 'free' (no cost). This goes beyond the safety annotations and clarifies the content scope.
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 three brief sentences covering purpose, usage, and a safety/cost note. The purpose sentence is dense but well-structured, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description adequately covers what it returns (activity timeline with rationale), the ordering (newest first), and the practical use case (prevent redoing recent work). No gaps are apparent.
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 (limit) is fully described in the schema with range and default, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 defines the tool as 'the product timeline' and enumerates the specific content types (drafts, ships, skips, scans, observations, decisions with their rationale) and ordering (newest first). It distinguishes this from sibling getters by emphasizing the collective agent/founder history rather than a single resource.
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?
It explicitly instructs to 'Read before acting so you never redo recent work,' giving a clear when-to-use. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, but the guidance is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear action+resource pattern (get_, list_, set_, ship_, etc.) with distinct purposes. A few boundaries could cause confusion, such as get_move vs get_output (both return drafts) and ship_move vs set_output_status (both mark things shipped), though descriptions mitigate this sufficiently.
The overwhelming majority use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (list_feed, ship_move, get_visibility). The only outlier is 'whoami', a common convention but not verb_noun; otherwise the pattern is highly predictable.
At 41 tools, the surface is well over the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, this volume places significant cognitive load on agents and suggests some consolidation or modularization could help.
Core workflows for moves and outputs are covered (create/list/get/update/ship/skip/undo). However, the tool descriptions reference 'approve_output' as the publishing action, yet that tool is absent from the list, leaving a dead end for channel distribution. There are also no tools for editing competitors or managing Memory pages beyond recording insights.