Read a custom feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the read operation itself, which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich the agent's understanding of behavior such as pagination or rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and input format are front-loaded, and the discovery guidance is kept to a single compact sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with rich annotations and a well-described schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the required input and how to find it. The main gaps are the absence of an output schema and the undocumented cursor parameter, which are not addressed in the description, but the 'Pages automatically' note in the limit parameter helps mitigate this.

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 75%, covering feed, limit, and account with useful descriptions. The tool description adds a helpful hint for finding feed URIs, but it does not explain the cursor parameter, which lacks a schema description. Since the schema already handles most parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, though the cursor gap is a minor shortcoming.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read posts from a custom feed.' It also identifies the exact input forms (at:// URI or bsky.app link), making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from other feed-related tools like get_timeline or get_author_feed.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to obtain a feed reference: 'Find one with search_feeds, or your own with get_pinned_feeds.' This names the relevant sibling tools and provides actionable context, though it does not explicitly exclude cases like using get_timeline for the home feed or get_author_feed for a user's posts.

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