BetaSeries: timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only via 'Display' and hints at authentication with 'identified member' and 'connected member' for some operations. However, it does not explicitly state authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The two nearly identical descriptions for get-timeline-feed and get-timeline-friends add ambiguity. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 long but necessarily so for six operations. It is front-loaded with an instruction and uses a consistent, scannable format (operation [endpoint]: purpose, Params: list). Some repetition in parameter definitions (e.g., nbpp, since_id) is present but acceptable for standalone operation reference. No waste.

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?

For a multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description covers all operation purposes and parameters thoroughly. It lacks explicit details on authentication, response structure, or error behavior, which are important for a tool requiring an identified user for several operations. However, given the scope, it is mostly complete.

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 schema only defines operation (enum) and a generic params object without property specifics, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It lists every parameter per operation with explanations (e.g., 'id (ID of the event)', 'nbpp? (Number of events per page, maximum 100)') and marks optional ones with '?'. This far exceeds the schema's coverage.

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 this tool calls the BetaSeries 'timeline' API and lists six distinct operations, each with a specific verb and resource (e.g., 'Display a particular event', 'Display the latest events of the friends of the identified member'). This differentiates the operations within the tool and the timeline resource from sibling tools.

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 clear context for selecting operations by detailing what each returns (event vs. friends' feed vs. site-wide events) and notes optional parameters like pagination. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools or when to avoid this tool, but the operation-level guidance is solid. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so not a 5.

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