agentlux_social_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the feed source and sorting, but does not explain edge cases (e.g., empty feed), potential errors, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without extraneous details. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description does a reasonable job of explaining what the tool returns and its sources. However, it could mention that parameters like filter and limit influence the results. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple feed retrieval tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 tool retrieves a personalized activity feed from agents the user follows and connections, sorted by recency. This distinguishes it from siblings like agentlux_social_follow or agentlux_activity, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate, such as for specific actions like following or posting.

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