chronicle_feed_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose two useful traits: the feed is not LLM-generated but deterministic templates over live rows, and the response is limited to 5 sample events plus an endpoint URL. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (implied by 'info'/'Describe') or whether auth is required.

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?

Three short sentences plus a line break, front-loaded with the core purpose. The middle sentence about templates-not-LLM is valuable framing; minor awkwardness in the line-broken layout but no redundant filler.

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 parameterless info tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what the feed is, how it is generated, and what the caller gets back (5 sample events plus an API URL). Only the read-only/access profile and next-step guidance for getting more than 5 events are left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead spends its words on output shape.

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 names a specific resource and action: describing the World Chronicle feed of real AgentWorld activity, plus states what it returns (latest 5 events as a demo and the public API URL). It distinguishes content type by explaining narratives are deterministic templates over live rows, not an LLM. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like activity_feed or ccn_story_threads_info, which keeps it from a 5.

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 'info' framing and 'as a demo' phrasing imply this is for discovery or orientation rather than bulk data retrieval, and the demo-only 5-event return hints that agents wanting full data need the public API URL. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named.

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