get_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the navigation side-effect ('Open') and return behavior ('return visible post text'). However, it doesn't disclose whether the browser scrolling/state is modified permanently, whether auth is required, or pagination/graceful-failure behavior. The 'open' action implies a navigation side effect, which is a meaningful disclosure but incomplete.

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 efficient sentence that communicates the action and the return value with zero waste. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (browser navigation plus scraping visible posts) with no annotations and no output schema. The description adequately states the core behavior but does not explain the max_chars parameter, the browser state implications, or failure modes. For a feed-scraping tool, this is acceptable but leaves the agent guessing on edge cases like an unauthenticated session.

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 single parameter max_chars has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility. The description doesn't mention the max_chars parameter or its purpose (likely truncating returned text). However, with only one optional parameter, the schema is relatively self-explanatory, and the description covers the main behavior adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('LinkedIn home feed'), clearly stating it returns visible post text. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company or get_post since it targets the feed specifically, though no sibling alternative like a single-post viewer is explicitly named.

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 states it opens the home feed, implying it needs LinkedIn to be logged in and a browser to be active (a prerequisite likely required by sibling tools like linkedin_login). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, what context is needed (e.g., must be logged in), or any exclusions.

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