Navegar um feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: "Lista ao vivo" correctly signals a live, read-only listing operation, and pagination is mentioned so the agent knows results are paged. It stops short of stating that nothing is mutated, whether results are cached/real-time, what a returned post contains, or any rate/auth constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose/ordering/filtering before the enum glossary, and no filler. The trailing enumeration of feed values is compact and functional, though the one-word entries at the end are terse enough to border on schema repetition.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is listed, how it is ordered, how it is filtered, and that it paginates. It leaves out the return payload shape and any operational caveats, which an agent would need to chain calls to godly_get or godly_media reliably.

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 second sentence does real work the schema cannot: it explains that "x" means design posts mined from X and "websites" means sites recorded as video (classic Godly), and it maps the sort values to recent/popular/staff picks. Tag and category are mentioned as filters, but their slug distinction is left mostly to the schema.

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?

"Lista ao vivo um feed do Godly/Recent Design" names a clear verb (list) and resource (feed), and the parenthetical enumerates the three orderings, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It never names godly_search or godly_get, so the browse-vs-search boundary is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool to hit when you want an ordered, paginated feed filtered by tag/category, which is implicitly different from searching. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of X when…" statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on when a feed browse versus a taxonomy lookup (godly_taxonomy) is appropriate.

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