connects_feed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful nuance by stating 'without changing read state,' which clarifies that even though it reads, it does not mark items as read. It also surfaces 'visible viewer records,' adding visibility-filter context not present in 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core read action and immediately clarifies read-only scope and its distinction from posting and read-state changes. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although annotations and output schema cover safety and return details, the description lacks critical invocation context. An agent cannot determine that post_id is likely needed for the 'post' view, when group_id should be used, or how the views map to required parameters. For a tool with five parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is an incomplete description.

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 compensate for the five parameters. It only loosely maps to the view enum by listing feed posts/comments/photos/viewer records, but it does not explain how post_id, group_id, limit, and offset interact with each view. This leaves parameter semantics significantly underdocumented.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resources: feed posts, comments, photos, and visible viewer records. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from posting or changing read state, making its purpose clear and differentiable from sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: use this tool to read feed-related content and not to post or alter read state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond 'without posting or changing read state,' but the positioning is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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