get_feed_uploads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing pagination, sorting, response format, or any constraints beyond the feed_id. The schema's parameter descriptions cover mechanics, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for a tool with four parameters and pagination. It fails to mention pagination behavior, return structure, or the significance of the 'after' cursor. The schema fills some gaps, but the description alone leaves the agent guessing about the result format.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It remains neutral, neither enhancing nor detracting.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving upload history for a product feed, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('upload history'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feeds or get_feed. It is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what the tool does.

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 is minimal and only implies usage when you need upload history for a specific feed (feed_id). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preferred contexts. No reference to sibling tools is made in the description.

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