hyperfeed_react

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains that positive actions influence future recommendations and dismiss hides the item, and also tells the agent not to narrate the call. While it doesn't disclose return values or error cases, the behavioral side effects are well outlined.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then action semantics, then a usage instruction. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition or fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, action values, behavioral effects, and invocation timing. It could mention return values or idempotency, but the essential information for correct usage is present.

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 description enumerates the valid action values, adding meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no descriptions). However, item_id is not explicitly explained, though its purpose is implied by the tool's focus on feed items. The schema coverage is 0%, so partial compensation only.

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 records user interactions with feed items, lists the supported actions, and positions it as the relevance loop. This distinguishes it from siblings like recommend or report_outcome, which have different purposes.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('after the user engages') and how to invoke it ('silently'), and references report_outcome as a similar operation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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