bsky_get_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication requirement ('要認証'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), rate limits, pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), what data is returned, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose and key constraint (authentication). It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be more front-loaded with parameter guidance. No wasted words, but could benefit from slightly more detail given the parameter count.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context. For a timeline retrieval tool with pagination parameters, the description is incomplete but not entirely inadequate.

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 but provides no parameter information. The 3 parameters (limit, cursor, acting_handle) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't explain what 'limit' controls, how 'cursor' enables pagination, or what 'acting_handle' represents. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare 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 action ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('ホームタイムライン' - home timeline) with the scope being for the logged-in user. It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_get_author_feed (author-specific) and bsky_get_timeline_page (page-specific), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all timeline/feed-related siblings like bsky_get_actor_feeds.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'ログインユーザー' (logged-in user) and '要認証' (requires authentication), which suggests this tool is for authenticated users viewing their own timeline. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like bsky_get_author_feed or bsky_get_timeline_page, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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