get_group_feed

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 only repeats the schema's required parameters and tells where to obtain them, but does not describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that might return a large feed.

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 concise, starting with the core purpose, then a clearly marked IMPORTANT note and a structured Args list. It avoids verbosity while delivering necessary parameter context. Slight improvement would be possible by merging the redundant required note, but it is well-organized and efficient.

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 an output schema exists (indicated by the context signal), the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential parameter origin and requirement. However, it lacks contextual details like pagination limits, ordering, or potential filters, and does not clearly distinguish its scope from sibling tools. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not rich.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that school_id is the same one used in list_groups and group_id comes from list_groups results, adding practical meaning beyond the bare integer types. This is sufficient for the two parameters involved.

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 retrieves posts from a specific group's feed, using a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('posts from a specific group's feed'). It differentiates from siblings like get_feeds (likely for all feeds) and get_post (single post) by specifying the group context.

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 implies usage by requiring school_id and group_id, and mentions they come from list_groups, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_feeds or get_post, nor does it provide exclusions or criteria for selection. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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