get_profile_feed

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the default-to-own-account behavior and the type filter, but omits pagination details, authentication requirements, and any safety confirmation beyond the word 'Read'. This leaves some gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 the main purpose and key behaviors. Every clause adds value: 'Read...', 'Defaults to your own account...', and 'pass user_id for anyone else.' No fluff.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, default behavior, and content-type filter, which is solid for a read-only feed tool. While it doesn't outline the response shape or pagination, the schema supplies parameter details, and the description is reasonably complete given its simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds conceptual framing for 'notes'/'posts' and clarifies the default user, but does not materially exceed what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 reads one account's published content (Notes, posts, or both), using the specific verb 'Read' and identifying the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the profile scope and defaulting to the agent's own account.

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 concrete usage context: defaulting to your own account for listing your Notes, and passing a user_id for anyone else. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient to decide when to use this tool versus a general feed.

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