get_feed_v1_me_feed_get

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses authentication requirement (Clerk), pagination mechanism (cursor), and behavior of feed types (e.g., 'people' returns empty, 'merged' coerced). This exceeds expectations.

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 well-structured with sections for feed types and pagination, and it is front-loaded. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return value (dataset updates, paginated with next_cursor) and covers authentication, feed behaviors, and pagination. It is complete for a retrieval tool.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds extra context beyond schema, such as the coercion behavior of 'merged' type and that 'people' returns empty, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 defines the tool as retrieving a user activity feed with updates from followed providers, listing feed types and their current status. It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools like get_dataset_activity and get_user_activity.

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 explains when to use the feed, including limitations (e.g., 'people' feed not available) and pagination. It provides context but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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