x_get_community_feed

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'visible' usefully signals that extraction is limited to currently rendered content rather than API-backed retrieval, but nothing is said about authentication state, scrolling/pagination, rate limits, or whether the feed must already be open.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It leaves open what 'current' means operationally and how visible-content limits interact with the limit parameter.

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% — both 'url' (full community URL, opened first) and 'limit' (1-30) are documented in the schema itself. The description only loosely restates 'specified' for the url parameter and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('visible posts from ... X community feed'), so an agent knows this reads posts rather than community metadata. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors like x_extract_community or x_search_posts, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

'Current or specified X community feed' implies the two usage modes (default to the currently open community vs. pass a URL), which is useful context. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over x_extract_community or x_get_timeline, and no stated prerequisites.

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