get_homefeed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add that refresh_index is for pagination and states the return type, but it omits critical context such as whether authentication is required, how recommendations are generated, or any rate-limit constraints. For a feed tool, login dependencies are especially relevant.

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 Args/Returns structure is clear and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The long tag list is necessary but could arguably be placed as an enum in the schema; repeating default values that already exist in the schema is minor redundancy.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and an output schema, the invocation details are mostly covered. However, the definition lacks usage context, such as when to prefer this over search_videos, and does not mention whether login is required, which is a meaningful gap given the sibling check_login_status tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It enumerates all 16 allowed tag values, clarifies count as the number of videos, and explains refresh_index as the pagination cursor. Without this, the parameters would be opaque.

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 opening sentence 'Get recommended videos from Douyin home feed' clearly identifies the action and resource with a specific verb. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_video_detail or get_user_posts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_videos, get_user_posts, or check_login_status. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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