Browse the public feed

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that rows belong to other accounts, prompts are hidden, NSFW rows are excluded unless includeNsfw is set, every row carries nsfwFlagged for safeguards, and it costs nothing. This is rich behavioral context that significantly aids the agent.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential value: purpose, use case, ownership, and NSFW behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes no fluff, maintaining high information density.

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 read-only browse tool with three simple parameters, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its use case, key behavioral details (ownership, prompts hidden, NSFW handling), and an alternative action, making it fully self-contained without an output schema.

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 already covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that NSFW rows are excluded by default and that includeNsfw enables them, and that each row includes nsfwFlagged for safeguards. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Page through the 2DAI public feed — what creators across the platform have published, newest first.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_creations by noting rows belong to OTHER accounts and are suitable for inspiration and trend scans, with a pointer to organise_creation for liking.

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 states the use case ('Useful for inspiration and trend scans') and mentions an alternative for acting on rows ('you can like them with organise_creation'). It also clarifies NSFW filtering behavior, guiding when to set includeNsfw. This provides clear context for when to use the tool.

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