Get Social Feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'Get' action and the source of items, but it does not state ordering, pagination behavior, whether follower and community content are mixed, or any access requirements.

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 that immediately states the action, object, and scope. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema exists, the description still omits important invocation context: the meaning of the 'imperial' flag, whether 'limit' caps the number of returned items, and how follower/community items are combined. For a tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, this is incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory and has a default, but 'imperial' is opaque without additional context; the agent is left to guess whether it controls units, filtering, or something else.

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 ('Get') with a concrete resource ('social feed items') and source scope ('followed athletes or community'). None of the sibling tools target a social feed, so an agent can clearly distinguish this from the training, workout, and stats 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 the tool should be used when social feed content is requested, and the sibling list shows no clearly overlapping alternative. However, it never explicitly states when to favor this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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