connects_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it never posts, never changes read state, and only returns 'visible' viewer records. This complements rather than contradicts the 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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds exclusionary scope. No word is wasted and no schema details are redundantly repeated.

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?

Despite rich annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool. It omits parameter dependencies (e.g., when post_id is required), what 'visible viewer records' means, and how group_id scopes the feed. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only loosely maps to the view enum (feed/posts/comments/photos/viewers) but does not explain limit, offset, post_id, group_id, or how post_id/group_id interact with the selected view. This leaves key parameter semantics undefined.

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 starts with 'Read' and lists specific resource types: 'feed posts/comments/photos or visible viewer records.' It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('without posting or changing read state'), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from write-oriented siblings.

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 implies the tool is for reading feed content and viewer records but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools. The phrase 'without posting...' hints at a limitation but doesn't route the agent to a posting alternative.

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