bsky_get_author_feed

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 mentions fetching a feed but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the user doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely requires authentication and has pagination.

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 sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses key contextual details like authentication needs, pagination behavior, and parameter explanations, making it minimally adequate but with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the 'handle' parameter implicitly ('指定したユーザー' - specified user) but doesn't explain the purpose of 'limit', 'cursor', or 'acting_handle'. This leaves 3 of 4 parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond 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 clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get/fetch) and resource ('指定したユーザーの最新投稿フィード' - specified user's latest post feed), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bsky_get_timeline or bsky_get_post_thread, which also retrieve feeds or posts.

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 like bsky_get_timeline (for the user's own timeline) or bsky_get_post_thread (for a specific post's replies). It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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