get_activity_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose ordering (newest first) and the default scoping behavior, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the feed is filtered/moderation-controlled, or how pagination behaves beyond the schema's own limit/offset fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before describing scope overrides. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default scope, ordering, and scope override adequately. The main omission is any hint of the response shape or auth expectations, but that gap is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, user_id, and username. The description adds the semantic point that user_id and username are alternative ways to switch scope, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (reading activity feed) and enumerates exactly what events it contains (status changes, ratings, reviews, list updates) plus ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_reading_journal or get_user_reviews.

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?

Explicitly states the default scope (feed of users you follow) and the condition for overriding it (pass user_id or username for a single user). It gives clear usage context but does not name alternative tools or warn about when not to use it.

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