get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns recent feed posts with engagement data,' which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by bullet-like parameter explanations and a closing sentence on returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema likely handles return details. However, it lacks context on authentication needs or error handling, which could be important for a LinkedIn API tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'limit' is the 'Maximum number of feed items to return' with default and max values, and 'use_cache' indicates 'Whether to use cached data if available' with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail caching behavior implications.

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's purpose: 'Get the authenticated user's LinkedIn feed' specifies both the verb ('Get') and resource ('LinkedIn feed'), and clarifies it's for the authenticated user. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_posts' or 'get_profile_posts', which might retrieve similar content but from different sources.

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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve posts or content (e.g., 'get_my_posts', 'get_profile_posts', 'get_company_updates'), there's no indication of when this feed-specific tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from other content-fetching tools.

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