socials_get_feed

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the basic function by explaining the non-obvious behavior that it reads the pinned agent tab, not the visible tab, and that it works across Chrome windows. This is valuable context that an agent would otherwise not know. It also discloses the Pro access requirement. This is a strong effort, though it omits details like rate limits or error behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It states the action, a prerequisite, and a critical behavioral quirk without any filler. This is a model of conciseness for a structured tool description.

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?

Given a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the critical points: purpose, prerequisite, and the unusual pinned-tab behavior. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a 'get feed' tool this is not essential. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly, though not exhaustive. A score of 4 reflects that it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for both parameters (count, platform) with descriptions and an enum for platform. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema. If the schema did not exist, this would be a problem, but with 100% schema tag 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?

The description begins with 'Get recent posts from a social media feed', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like socials_get_post_context, but the mention of 'feed' and 'recent posts' is sufficiently specific for an agent to distinguish it from related tools.

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 provides usage context by noting that it requires Pro access and that it reads the pinned agent tab (set by socials_open_tab). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The implied usage is clear, but explicit guidance comparing to siblings is missing.

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