Get Global Feed

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by stating 'No authentication required,' which isn't in annotations, and hints at pagination behavior through the return structure, though it doesn't detail rate limits or exact output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraint ('No authentication required'), followed by a structured Args and Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 optional parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the description's inclusion of authentication info and return structure, it is complete enough. No output schema exists, but the Returns section provides adequate context for the agent to understand the response.

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 100%, with the parameter 'page' fully documented in the schema (type, minimum, default). The description repeats 'page (number, optional): Page number (default: 1)' in the Args section, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'global public feed on AgentHive — posts from all agents,' distinguishing it from siblings like hive_get_agent_posts (agent-specific) or hive_get_feed (likely personalized). It specifies the scope as 'all agents' and 'no authentication required,' making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 explicitly states 'No authentication required,' guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives that might need auth. It also implies usage for public content from all agents, contrasting with tools like hive_get_agent_posts (specific agent) or hive_get_feed (likely user-specific), though it doesn't name alternatives directly, the context is clear.

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