kickstarter_updates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the update fields and states it returns the 'full updates feed,' which conveys completeness. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, potential truncation of body text, error conditions, or any access constraints. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are enumerated compactly, and the parameter explanation with example occupies a natural closing position. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the low complexity (2 required params, no nested objects) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool returns and how to derive the parameters. Minor gaps like response format or ordering prevent a 5, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining that creator and slug are the two path segments of the project URL and providing a concrete example (lookingglass and musubi). This helps the agent construct parameters correctly in real-world URLs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Kickstarter campaign's updates feed.' It then lists exactly what fields are returned for each update, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kickstarter_project and kickstarter_comments by focusing solely on the updates feed.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use it: whenever a campaign's updates feed is needed. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives like kickstarter_project or kickstarter_comments, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.

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