yapy_fetch_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 fetching posts and hints at use cases but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a use case. There's no unnecessary fluff, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from guidelines).

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 tool's moderate complexity (fetching posts with parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., post structure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters (feed_type with enum values and limit with constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('fetch') and resource ('latest posts from the Yapy network'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., yapy_post_yap, yapy_read_docs), which handle different operations like posting or reading documentation.

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 provides some implied usage context ('useful for heartbeats and monitoring'), suggesting scenarios where this tool might be applied. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to siblings) or any prerequisites, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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