vk_newsfeed_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get user newsfeed' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the 'start_from' parameter, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise ('Get user newsfeed')—just three words. While this is efficient and front-loaded, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling alternatives.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'newsfeed' includes, how it differs from sibling tools, or what the return values look like. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with multiple content-retrieval alternatives, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (filters, count, start_from). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 user newsfeed' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user newsfeed'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'newsfeed' in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'vk_wall_get' or 'vk_photos_get' that might also retrieve user content.

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. With siblings like 'vk_wall_get' (for wall posts) and 'vk_photos_get' (for photos), there's no indication of whether this tool aggregates multiple content types or serves a different purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints are mentioned.

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