phabricator_feed_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format but does not address any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. A query tool likely is read-only, but this is not confirmed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return structure, then adds specific context about the method. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains the return format and the method used. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite parameters 'after' and 'before'. The schema covers these, but the description could be more complete regarding iteration.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds context about the underlying Conduit method but does not provide additional parameter details 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 tool queries the Phabricator activity feed, listing specific activity types (task updates, revision changes, commits) and the return format (object keyed by story PHID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are specialized for other entities like audit, blog, or revision.

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 notes that this uses 'feed.query (the only Conduit method for feed data)', implying it is the sole tool for this kind of data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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