get_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral: no pagination semantics despite limit/offset existing, no ordering, no note that 'claims' returns only finished claims, no indication of what a feed entry contains. With annotations doing the light lifting, this remains well short of the bar.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with zero filler. But it is a bare fragment rather than a sentence, and its brevity comes from omission rather than disciplined compression — there is no enough content to be concise about.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema, open-world feed tool, the description omits what a feed returns, how limit/offset paginate, and which optional filters pair with which kind. An agent must reverse-engineer all of this from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 63%, so several parameters (limit, offset, kind, game_id partly) are undocumented. The description does add real value by expanding the opaque enum value 'aotw' to 'Achievement of the Week' and clarifying that 'claims' means finished claims, but it says nothing about the filters that only apply to specific kinds (game_id, console_id, award_kind, claim_kind). Baseline-plus for the acronym expansion, not more.

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?

It identifies the resource as 'Site feeds' and enumerates the five feed kinds, which does distinguish it from siblings like get_leaderboards or get_user_games. However, there is no verb ('retrieve', 'list') and the content is essentially a restatement of the 'kind' enum already present in the schema, so the purpose is only implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternative named among the 14 sibling tools. An agent has no idea when this tool is preferable to get_leaderboards, get_achievement_unlocks, or get_user_profile.

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