retrieve_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the async queueing, immediate return status, pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours'), long-polling behavior of get_workflow_result, and the risk of duplicate work from retrying. This goes far beyond a simple read operation.

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?

Three paragraphs each serve a distinct purpose: core action, workflow mechanics, and edge-case handling. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's asynchronous complexity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains the initial return object, status values, pendingReason semantics, and how to obtain the final result via get_workflow_result. It also covers working hours edge cases and duplicates prevention, making it complete for an async tool.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter `limit` with min, max, and default. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond this. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score is 3.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('posts from the current account's personalized LinkedIn home feed'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like retrieve_connections and get_inbox by specifying 'home feed'.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName for the final result, and warns against retrying the original tool while a workflow is running. Also gives clear guidance on handling pendingReason 'outsideWorkingHours' by reporting to the user rather than looping.

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