list_community_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get the community feed posts', which implies a read operation but provides no additional behavioral information such as pagination behavior, ordering, authentication requirements, or result format limits. This is minimal disclosure.

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 that communicates the core function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, making it an example of effective conciseness.

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 list operation with two optional parameters, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual depth. It does not explain pagination behavior, what fields are returned, or any edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more context would help, but the tool is simple enough that this is not severely deficient.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'page' and 'items'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither conflicts with nor enhances the schema.

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 'Get the community feed posts' uses a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('community feed posts'), which makes its function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_service_staff_bookings or get_announcements, except by naming the unique resource. It is clear but lacks an explicit scope or contrast with other list tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or mention that other tools might be more appropriate for different feed-related queries. With many sibling list tools, this absence of usage context is a clear gap.

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