Read recent Oase feed posts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses decrypted output, chronological ordering (oldest first), line format including post IDs and (you) tags for agent-published posts, attachment tag structure, and follow-up tool usage. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured data.

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 dense but efficient: one sentence for purpose/ordering, one for output format, and one for follow-up actions. Every sentence adds actionable detail without fluff; the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains output structure, ordering, decryption, and downstream operations. It addresses all likely agent needs—what it returns and how to act on it—making it complete.

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%: both limit and oase_id have detailed descriptions including defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific info, so it does not augment the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema covers fully.

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 it reads recent posts from an oase feed, with specifics like decryption and oldest-first ordering. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reading vs sending (send_post), commenting (send_message), and media download (read_media). The verb 'read' and resource 'posts' are explicit.

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 explicitly routes post-reading follow-ups: download attachments via read_media, comment via send_message, and react via react_to_message, each with the necessary thread/message IDs. This provides clear when-to-use guidance against alternatives, ensuring the agent picks the right tool for each subsequent action.

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