home_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and adds the 'count 1-60' constraint beyond the schema, but it omits authentication requirements, pagination behavior, and rate limits.

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 very tight and front-loaded, using two short sentences with no wasted words. The fragment 'count 1-60' is slightly abrupt but 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 4-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is missing pagination semantics for max_id/since_id/page and any usage guidance. It covers the core purpose and count limit but is not complete enough to call the tool confidently without opening the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It adds a useful count range, but says nothing about page, max_id, or since_id, leaving most parameter semantics unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read the authenticated user's home timeline,' and parenthetically clarifies content as 'statuses from people they follow.' This distinguishes it from public timelines and mentions implicitly, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_timeline, mentions, or public_timeline. The implied usage is clear from the purpose statement, but no exclusion or alternative routing is provided.

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