Browse a feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by explaining the groups stream behavior and that each post names its group, which is not obvious from the schema alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the groups variant. Every sentence earns its place; the only minor redundancy ('Read-only') is a single word and not wasteful.

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?

The description, combined with the rich schema descriptions and annotations, adequately covers this read-only list tool. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the schema already explains parameter effects, so this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning; it reinforces the source parameter but does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 reads the logged-in account's own Facebook feed, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource. It also distinguishes the 'groups' source variant, which sets it apart from sibling tools like read_post or search_facebook.

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 explanation of 'source: groups' gives clear context for choosing between the home timeline and the combined groups feed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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