moltbook_get_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('List of posts with title, author, score, comment count, and content preview') and mentions pagination via cursor, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), or error conditions.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clear 'Args:' section with bullet-like formatting, followed by a 'Returns:' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting makes it easy to scan and understand.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly, describes the return format, and mentions pagination. The main gap is lack of authentication/rate limit information and clearer differentiation from sibling tools, but for a feed retrieval tool, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter documentation: clear explanations of all 5 parameters including sort options with values ('hot', 'new', 'top', 'rising'), limit range (1-100), filter options ('all', 'following'), submolt purpose, and cursor usage for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 as 'Get the Moltbook feed' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Moltbook feed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'moltbook_get_home' or 'moltbook_get_post' by focusing on the feed rather than home page, specific posts, or other resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'moltbook_search' which might also return posts.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'moltbook_get_home' instead, when 'moltbook_search' might be more appropriate, or any prerequisites for using the feed. The only implied usage is for retrieving feed content, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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