get_latest_rss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it provides meaningful behavioral details: it returns JSON, supports multi-day queries, enforces days/limit maximums, and notes that include_summary defaults to false to save tokens. The get verb also clearly implies a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a clarifying context sentence, labeled Args and Returns sections, and concrete examples. Every section adds value and helps an agent use the tool without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given four optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all invocation details: parameter semantics, defaults, bounds, return type, and usage examples. The agent has everything needed to call 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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: feeds as RSS source IDs with an example, days with default and max, limit with default and max, and include_summary with a default and rationale. This goes well beyond the input 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 and resource, '获取最新的 RSS 订阅数据', and immediately distinguishes RSS data from hot-list news by noting they are stored separately. This prevents confusion with siblings like get_latest_news while making the operation's scope clear.

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?

It explicitly states this tool is suitable for getting the latest content from specific sources, giving the agent a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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