Get Medium feed

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety and dynamic nature of the operation. The description adds value beyond those by explaining the two feed modes and the pagination contract ('Pass nextCursor back as cursor'), which are behavioral details an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the resource, the second explains the input variants and pagination. It is front-loaded with the main concept and every sentence 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?

The description covers the core purpose, feed variants, and pagination, but with no output schema it does not describe the shape of feed items or how to identify a post for subsequent operations. The resource and parameters are clear enough for invocation, but an agent may need more context about the response.

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 50% (since and cursor are documented). The description adds meaning to the 'feed' enum and restates cursor usage, which is helpful. However, it does not add anything for 'limit' or expand on the 'since' format, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema for those.

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 this returns the user's home feed and defines the two feed variants, which makes the resource specific. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_recent_posts or search_posts, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explains that 'following' returns posts from followed authors/publications and 'for_you' returns recommendations, which implies how to choose between them. However, it gives no guidance on when to use get_feed versus sibling tools such as get_recent_posts or search_posts, so the tool-selection guidance is only implicit.

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