ariel_get_list_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, safely covering the mutability profile. The description adds the resource scope ('from a list feed') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, format effects, or auth requirements beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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, short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it does not provide the context needed to confidently select among several similar feed-related sibling tools, so it earns only a mid-range score.

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 schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but the description omits usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any clarification of what 'list feed' means versus other feed types. Given the large sibling set and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves important selection context to the agent.

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 parameters like list, limit, cursor, and format are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('posts from a list feed'), clearly identifying this as a read operation for list-based content. It is distinguishable from related siblings like ariel_get_list (list metadata) and ariel_get_author_feed, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from ariel_get_feed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ariel_get_feed, ariel_get_timeline, or ariel_get_author_feed. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the fact that it requires a list AT URI, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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