get_user_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read operation and scopes it to a user's recent posts, but it does not disclose ordering, authentication needs, visibility constraints, or behavior for invalid handles. It 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the scope efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, this is reasonably complete: the resource, the target user, and recency are all communicated. Minor gaps like exact ordering and return shape are inferable and not critical for invocation.

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 documentation covers 100% of the parameters, including descriptions, defaults, and constraints for handle and limit. The description mostly restates the handle concept ('specific user') and adds only a mild implication of recency, so it contributes little 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 'Get recent posts from a specific user' has a clear verb ('get'), resource ('recent posts'), and scope qualifier ('from a specific user'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_timeline and search_posts, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the recent posts of a particular Bluesky handle. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over get_timeline or search_users, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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