get_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about sorting and pagination, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects or limitations.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the pagination detail is secondary. No unnecessary words or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 simple feed retrieval tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It states what the tool does (gets recent posts), the sorting behavior, and pagination support. It omits explicit return format or authentication details, but these are not critical given the straightforward read-only nature and the absence of an output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for limit, offset, and network_id. The description's mention of pagination adds context but does not go beyond what the schema already documents. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (feed of recent posts in a Piazza course), with additional detail on sorting ('sorted by most recently updated') and pagination. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_post (single post) and search_posts/filter_posts (filtering/searching), 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or reference sibling tools such as search_posts or list_courses, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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