moltbook_read_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema — the personalized-to-global fallback — but says nothing about auth requirements, response shape, or result size, leaving substantial gaps for a feed reader.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding, and the core resource plus the fallback behavior are front-loaded. Every clause 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?

For a read-only list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% param coverage, the description is minimally sufficient but omits sort/limit semantics and any hint at result size or ordering. An agent can invoke it, but not optimally.

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 only 33% — only 'scope' is documented in the schema. The description vaguely touches the scope concept via the fallback sentence but never explains 'sort' or the 'limit' min/max bounds, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Read the Moltbook feed") that cleanly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like moltbook_post or moltbook_comment. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical craber_feed sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 default behavior is explained (personalized feed preferred, global as fallback), which implies when this tool is the right call, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative to read a feed another way. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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