Get Content 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 does not mention pagination, response format, ordering, or any constraints on the feed. Merely stating 'get a feed' provides minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond its basic read operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a high score for efficiency, though the brevity limits its informative value.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly under-specified. It fails to explain what 'AP content' means, how the feed is ordered or paginated, what fields are returned, or how the various filtering and inclusion parameters interact. The description is too sparse to provide a complete picture for an agent.

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% coverage, with each parameter including a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already in the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states 'Get a feed of incoming AP content' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_content or get_content_bulk, which also retrieve content, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative content retrieval tools. The single-sentence description offers no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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