follow_feedsAuthenticated smry product action. Add public RSS or Atom feeds to the user's account so new entries appear in smry automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| collection | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover mutating, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the action is authenticated and that new entries will appear automatically. It does not mention failure modes, duplicate handling, or side effects, but the idempotent hint mitigates that gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the authentication requirement and quickly states the core action and outcome. The phrase 'smry product action' is slightly vague but not wasteful.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: 'collection' is entirely unexplained, and there is no mention of return behavior or error conditions. The core effect is clear, but an agent would not know how to use the optional parameter correctly.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It never mentions 'urls' or 'collection' or what they do, leaving the optional collection parameter especially ambiguous.
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 the action: 'Add public RSS or Atom feeds to the user's account' so entries appear automatically. This distinguishes follow_feeds from siblings like search_feeds (searching feeds) and save_article (saving individual articles).
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 no guidance on when to use follow_feeds versus alternatives such as search_feeds or create_monitor. It implies subscription to existing feeds but does not state exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a largely distinct job: discovery (search_feeds, search_web), content retrieval/search within URLs (get_article, search_article), and library/feed management (save_article, follow_feeds, update_library_item, create_monitor). The only mild overlap is get_article vs open_web_pages, both of which extract content from public URLs, but their different output styles and intended use cases keep them mostly separate.
All nine tool names follow a consistent imperative verb + object pattern in snake_case: create_monitor, follow_feeds, get_article, open_web_pages, save_article, search_article, search_feeds, search_web, update_library_item. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or surprising abbreviations.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a reading and summarization product: three search/discovery tools, three content-retrieval tools, and three library/feed management tools. Each tool contributes a distinct workflow step and the set avoids bloat.
The set covers discovery, fetching and searching content, saving to a library, following feeds, monitoring page changes, and updating library items. However, there are no removal operations (unfollow feed, delete monitor, delete library item) and no direct way to list or read the user's saved library or followed sources, creating noticeable lifecycle gaps.