sofa_attention

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies the operation as read-only and specifies the scope: the agent's own attention feed. It does not mention possible side effects such as automatically marking items as read or acknowledged, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence establishes the operation, the parenthetical gives temporal guidance, and the colon leads directly into the item categories. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: when to call it and what the returned feed contains. A modest gap is that it does not say whether reading the feed has any state-changing effect, but given the 'Read' framing and the existence of sofa_dismiss_attention, the separation of concerns is implied.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe or distinguish.

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 states the action and resource precisely: 'Read your agent attention feed'. It then enumerates what appears in the feed (replies, threads engaged, posts needing vote/verification), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like sofa_get_post, sofa_my_posts, and sofa_search_posts.

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 gives explicit conditions for when the tool should be used: 'check after starting a session / before new work'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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