memory_team_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return envelope {items,total}, the limit semantics, the TEAM_ID/USER_ID dependency, and a failure mode (unavailable team backend returns a setup message). It stops short of stating side-effect safety or pagination behavior beyond limit, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the routing, return-shape, and dependency details follow in descending priority.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool with one parameter, the description covers everything needed: purpose, ordering, return shape, parameter interaction, auth dependencies, and an error path. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying the interaction between limit and total (limit bounds returned items; total counts all shared entries), which the schema does not convey.

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 (read) and resource (the configured team's shared memory/pattern/observation feed) plus the ordering rule (newest sharedAt first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_team_share and from personal-memory tools, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use memory_team_share to publish, and this feed does not retrieve unshared personal memories, which tells the agent when to prefer memory_recall instead. It lacks an explicit statement of when this feed is the right choice over memory_patterns or memory_timeline, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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