get_rss_feeds_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and largely meets it: the verb '查看' (view) implies a non-destructive read, and the return format is exhaustively documented including generation timestamp and per-feed item counts. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects or mention rate limits/pagination, but for a zero-parameter status tool the disclosed behavior is substantive and accurate.

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 title line, one-sentence summary, a bulleted Returns section, and a usage example. The first two lines are mildly redundant ('获取 RSS 源状态信息' vs '查看当前配置的 RSS 源及其数据统计信息'), but every other sentence earns its place by documenting the exact JSON shape an agent can expect.

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, read-only status tool with an output schema already present, the description is near-complete: it documents the output schema in prose anyway, provides an example invocation, and names the key fields. The only gaps are the absence of explicit selection guidance among the 26 sibling tools and no explicit non-destructive claim, both minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. The example call demonstrates the no-argument invocation, which is consistent with the empty 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+resource pair ('获取 RSS 源状态信息' – get RSS feed status) and clarifies it is about the current configured feeds and their data statistics, not feed content. The documented return shape (available_dates, today_feeds, generated_at) clearly distinguishes it from content-retrieval siblings like get_latest_rss/search_rss and from system/storage status tools.

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 via the example call 'get_rss_feeds_status() # 查看所有 RSS 源状态' and the return structure suggests it is meant for inspecting feed data coverage and per-feed counts. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_available_dates, get_latest_rss, or get_system_status, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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