FeedWatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the fetch is immediate/synchronous and that it returns added/modified/removed diffs. However, it never says what 'changes' are relative to (since the last call? a persisted baseline? a prior snapshot?), whether state is stored between invocations, or any auth/rate-limit considerations for fetching an arbitrary URL.

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 tight sentences with the core action and return payload front-loaded and the no-monitor constraint appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return payload (added/modified/removed with field-level diffs), which is the key thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the diff baseline/state model, which matters for a stateless-looking single-URL check.

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 100% for the single 'url' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that a feed is fetched, adding no format, validation, or scheme details beyond the schema's 'Feed URL to check once'.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Fetch a feed immediately') with the resource and the exact output shape ('detected changes (added / modified / removed) with field-level diffs'). The closing clause separates it from the monitor-based siblings (create_monitor, list_monitors) by stating no monitor is required.

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?

'Does not require a monitor to exist' gives a clear context for choosing this tool: ad hoc, one-off checks rather than setting up a monitored feed. It stops short of explicitly naming create_monitor as the alternative or stating when NOT to use this, but the selection context is inferable without ambiguity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful non-obvious trait: the monitor reports edits to existing items with field-level diffs, 'unlike most tools.' But it omits mutation-side behavior such as duplicate-monitor handling, permissions, and whether the monitor persists indefinitely.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the differentiator (edit detection with diffs) follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally indicate what creation returns (e.g., a monitor id). It covers what is created and the key behavioral differentiator, but leaves return/handle semantics and notification behavior after creation unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (url, name, keywords, intervalSeconds) are already documented in the schema, including the enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (change monitor) with the accepted scope (RSS, Atom, JSON Feed URLs). The create vs. check/list distinction from siblings is clear from the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain: use this to set up a monitor, use check_feed to inspect one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., auth, whether the feed must be publicly reachable).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the result (status and next check time per monitor) and 'List all' implies a safe, non-mutating read, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, result caps, or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (scope, return fields) 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?

For a simple no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even names the returned fields. It stops short of describing pagination or filters, which are the only plausible remaining gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly signals an account-wide, unfiltered listing.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('change monitors') scoped to 'this account', plus the fields returned (status, next check time). It is clearly distinct from create_monitor, though it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with its siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate existing monitors, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus check_feed or create_monitor, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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