get_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the limit parameter and its default/max. It does not state that the operation is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. It also omits any auth requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The absence of such disclosures, combined with no annotations, leaves the agent with limited insight into the tool's 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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The argument explanation is minimal and to the point, with no filler or redundant content. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It does not mention authentication prerequisites, which are implied by the presence of login-related sibling tools, nor does it describe potential errors. However, given the simplicity of the operation and the availability of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects, though it could note read-only behavior or provide usage context.

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 only defines limit with a default, lacking a description. The description adds the max value (15) and clarifies the meaning as 'Number of posts to read'. This compensates for the schema's zero description coverage, providing critical context for the parameter's usage and constraints.

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 states the action: 'Read recent posts from your personal LinkedIn home feed.' It identifies the resource (personal home feed) and the operation (read), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_post or search_people. The verb 'read' is specific, and the resource is well-defined.

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 implies usage (reading the home feed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name any sibling tools for comparison. For a simple read operation, the purpose itself offers some implicit guidance, but it lacks explicit differentiation from related tools like get_network_briefing or get_profile_views.

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