bsky_get_actor_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'custom feeds' specifically means in the Bluesky context. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely requires authentication.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 that there's an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description's main job is to explain purpose and usage. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description should provide more context about authentication requirements, what 'custom feeds' means, and differentiation from other feed tools. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'handle' and 'acting_handle' mean, their format requirements, or their relationship. The description mentions '指定したユーザー' (specified user) which hints at the handle parameter, but doesn't explain the acting_handle parameter at all. This is inadequate compensation for the schema coverage gap.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and the resource ('指定したユーザーのカスタムフィード一覧' - specified user's custom feed list). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bsky_get_author_feed (which gets author posts) and bsky_get_timeline (which gets timeline posts). However, it doesn't explicitly mention Bluesky/AT Protocol context, which would make it fully specific.

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 doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other feed-related tools like bsky_get_author_feed or bsky_get_timeline, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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