ariel_get_author_feed

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scoping fact that this targets a specific user's feed rather than a global or timeline feed, but it provides no further behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, authentication needs, or result format.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and leaves parameter details to the schema, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the tool. However, with no output schema and several feed-like siblings, an agent would benefit from knowing what a returned feed contains and when to choose this over ariel_get_feed or ariel_get_timeline.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get posts' from 'a specific user's feed'. It scopes the operation to a single user's feed, which distinguishes it from generic feed or timeline tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ariel_get_timeline, ariel_get_feed, or ariel_get_posts. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection to inference.

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