get_feed_v1_users_me_feed_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, default ordering, or pagination behavior. The term 'public' hints at minimal access control but lacks detail.

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 very concise, front-loading the key purpose and HTTP method. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting important context that could be included without significant bloat.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (feed list with pagination), the description lacks essential context like default limit values, ordering, or handling of the 'since' parameter. It leaves the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage (since has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, leaving limit and offset undefined in terms of purpose or expected values.

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 returns the activity feed of followed users, including the HTTP method and path for specificity. It distinguishes itself from similar tools like get_user_activity by specifying 'followed users', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving a feed of followed users but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_user_activity, get_feed_v1_me_feed_get). No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are given.

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