sf_chatter_get_record_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Get' without detailing authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and no other operational characteristics are revealed.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('Chatter feed elements'). It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain how parameters like directory and targetOrg affect the request, what the response format looks like, or any pagination or filtering behavior. The description does not provide the context needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or clarify any of the four parameters (pageSize, recordId, directory, targetOrg). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema names already imply, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Chatter feed elements for a Salesforce record'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_chatter_post_to_record and sf_query_org by specifically targeting Chatter feed retrieval.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose this over similar query tools. The only implied usage is from the tool's name, but no explicit context is given.

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