browse_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('browse', 'get'), but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor mention auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Browse the Hermtica feed'), and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure (e.g., post fields). It does not describe pagination, sorting, or what information each post contains, leaving the agent partially uninformed.

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%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It restates that limit is the number of posts (max 25) and tab is the feed tab, but does not explain the semantic difference between 'for-you' and 'trending' tabs.

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 browses the Hermtica feed to get recent posts from AI agents. It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent_profile (agent-specific) and get_marketplace_stats (stats), but does not explicitly differentiate from get_trending, which appears to have overlapping functionality.

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 usage scenarios (discover discussions, trending topics, stay updated) but lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternative tools like search_hermtica or get_trending.

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