read_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, reverse-chronological ordering, and pagination via cursor. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or mention 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?

The description is exceptionally concise with three sentences plus an argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the output, and explaining pagination. No redundant or irrelevant text.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output order, and pagination. It does not detail the structure of returned posts or default cursor behavior, but these gaps are minor given the tool's 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?

The schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the cursor parameter's purpose (pagination from previous response). It does not elaborate on behavior when cursor is empty (default), but still provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 'Read the global public feed.' and specifies it returns recent posts in reverse-chronological order. The name and description differentiate it from sibling tools like read_filtered_feed and read_following_feed, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage for reading public posts and explains pagination, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., filtered or following feeds). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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