moltbook_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 mentions sorting options but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the returned posts include (e.g., metadata, content). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with a social 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and sorting options without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a social feed tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return format, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context.

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 low at 33%, with only the 'submolt' parameter documented. The description adds value by listing the sort options ('hot/new/top/rising'), which clarifies the 'sort' parameter beyond the enum in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide additional context for 'submolt', leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('posts from Moltbook feed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'moltbook_search' or 'moltbook_submolts', which might also retrieve posts in different contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain how this differs from 'moltbook_search' for finding posts or 'moltbook_submolts' for browsing specific communities, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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