read_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is needed, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time window), leaving gaps in transparency for a 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that directly state the purpose and a key behavioral trait ('No auth needed'). Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (read-only, 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on return values or error cases. It covers authentication but misses other contextual elements like pagination or data format, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (limit and since). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score without compensating or adding value.

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 action ('Read recent posts') and resource ('from the HumanAway feed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent_posts' or 'react_to_post', which also involve posts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent_posts' or 'react_to_post'. It mentions 'No auth needed,' which is a prerequisite but doesn't help in tool selection among siblings. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it scores low.

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