get_rss_feeds_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden — and it does explain the return shape in useful detail (the four fields and their nesting). However, it never explicitly states this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation (a relevant concern when a sibling is trigger_crawl), nor does it describe any failure, staleness, or cost behavior. The Returns section is helpful context, but a single explicit 'read-only' statement would elevate it.

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 efficient and appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Returns section and a minimal example. Every section earns its place. Minor marks: the docstring-style headers are slightly more verbose than necessary, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool, this is nearly complete: the output schema exists, the Returns section adds field-level semantics the schema may not carry, and the example shows valid usage. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely appears to be missing; only explicitly confirming non-destructiveness would round it out.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description has no parameter meanings to add. The included example call 'get_rss_feeds_status()' demonstrates correct no-argument invocation, which is the right compensation for an empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('获取 RSS 源状态信息' — get RSS feed status information) and immediately details what's included: available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds, and generated_at. The return semantics make the purpose unmistakable even before considering the docstring's detailed field breakdown.

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 provides a working example call and its comment ('查看所有 RSS 源状态') implying when to use it, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_system_status or get_storage_status. Usage context is implied through the example rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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