bsky_get_timeline_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirement and summarization behavior, but lacks critical details: pagination mechanics (cursor usage), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unexplained.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating authentication note). Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers authentication and summarization scope but misses parameter explanations and behavioral details like pagination. It's adequate as a starting point 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions summarization ('要約または全文'), which loosely relates to 'summary' and 'text_max_len' parameters, but doesn't explain 'limit', 'cursor', or 'acting_handle' at all. With 5 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value 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 action ('取得します' - get/fetch) and resource ('ホームタイムライン' - home timeline), specifying it retrieves content either summarized or in full. It distinguishes from siblings like bsky_get_author_feed (author-specific) or bsky_search_posts (search-based), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from bsky_get_timeline (similar function), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 for fetching home timeline content with optional summarization, and notes authentication requirement ('要認証'). It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., vs. bsky_get_timeline or bsky_get_author_feed), leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than fully articulated.

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