get_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent posts' and return fields, but does not explain pagination behavior (despite a 'page' parameter), ordering, authentication requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a list-type tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the primary purpose and the returned fields, earning its place without redundancy.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, usage context relative to sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats. A simple list tool still needs to mention how the 'page' parameter works and when to use this over similar feed tools.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. 'school_id' is inferable from the tool name, but 'page' is not mentioned at all. The description fails to explain the optional page parameter or its role in pagination, providing no added semantic value over the raw schema.

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 'Get recent posts from a school's feed with titles, authors, dates, and summaries' clearly states the action (get), the resource (posts from a school's feed), and the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_post' (singular post) and 'get_group_feed' (group feed), as it focuses on the school's feed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_post' and 'get_group_feed' exist, but there is no mention of when to choose this tool over them, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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