substack_notes_tabs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that each row has an id and type that must be passed together, and that the feed endpoint enforces type matching. This goes beyond the schema by describing output constraints and downstream expectations, which is valuable behavior information.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('List the Substack feed tabs'), then immediately provides differentiating detail (surface counts) and usage constraint (id/type pairing). 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return value expectations. It states what is returned (every selectable tab) and the key attributes (id and type) that need to be passed downstream. For a simple list with one optional parameter, this is sufficient. Minor details like field count or formatting are absent, but the core usage is explained.

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 enriches the surface parameter by specifying the exact tab counts (34 vs 33) and the nature of the tab sets (main feed, bestseller feed, categories), adding context beyond the schema enum description. However, it doesn't clarify parameter formatting or other nuances, so it stays at baseline.

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 tool lists Substack feed tabs and returns every selectable tab for a given surface. It distinguishes between the two surfaces (feed and explore) with different tab sets, making the purpose specific and actionable. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the verb-resource pairing is clear.

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 explains the context: tabs are obtained per surface and then used with a matching feed endpoint, which rejects mismatched types. This implies when to use the tool (before feed calls). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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