rss_subscribe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the URL is validated, what happens if the name already exists (overwrite or error), or whether the feed is fetched immediately. The return value (output schema exists but is undescribed) is also missing.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Save') and resource. Every part adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., validation, overwrite behavior) and usage guidance compared to siblings. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values. The agent may not have sufficient context to use the tool 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%, and the description provides minimal semantics: 'Save a feed URL under a short name' implicitly defines url and name, but lacks details like expected formats, examples, or constraints. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Save a feed URL under a short name for quick future access.' It specifies the verb 'save' and the resources (feed URL and short name). It distinguishes from siblings like rss_fetch_feed (fetch), rss_list_feeds (list), rss_read_feed (read), and rss_unsubscribe (remove) by focusing on saving/subscribing.

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 implies usage for saving a feed for quick future access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rss_fetch_feed (which may also retrieve feed data) or rss_unsubscribe. No exclusion or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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