get_rss_feeds_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the output structure (JSON with available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds, generated_at), which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the data is live or cached, nor any potential side effects or error conditions. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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: a one-line purpose statement, a clarifying sentence, a detailed Returns section, and an example. It is longer than strictly necessary but each section has purpose and the key information is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides thorough detail on return fields, which is sufficient for a simple status tool. It lacks potential error scenarios or performance notes, but for its simplicity the description is largely complete.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly shows a no-argument example invocation, and no parameter explanations are needed. The description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 tool's function: '获取 RSS 源状态信息' (get RSS source status information) and elaborates with '查看当前配置的 RSS 源及其数据统计信息' (view currently configured RSS sources and their data statistics). It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (RSS feed status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_latest_rss or search_rss, which handle content rather than status.

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 clear context: it is used to view RSS source configuration and statistics. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The example call reinforces its usage but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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