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 burden. It discloses the return structure (available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds, generated_at) and provides an example, adding value beyond the empty schema. The term 'view' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects or requires permissions. However, for a status tool, the main behavioral aspects are covered well.

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 (in Chinese), followed by a 'Returns' section listing fields, and an example. It is concise and front-loads the primary function. The use of both Chinese and English is slightly unconventional but does not harm clarity, and every sentence adds relevant information.

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 simple zero-argument status tool, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what data it returns (including all fields), and gives an example. It does not mention error conditions or behavior when no feeds are configured, but these are likely unnecessary for a read-only status endpoint. The presence of an output schema in the description covers the return format, so nothing critical is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain beyond confirming that no arguments are needed. The example 'get_rss_feeds_status()' reinforces this. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, the description appropriately handles parameter semantics without unnecessary detail.

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 gets RSS feed status information, elaborating that it shows currently configured RSS sources and their data statistics. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_latest_rss (which returns content) or get_system_status (which is about system-level status), so an agent can readily understand the specific purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer it over get_latest_rss or get_system_status, and the provided example ('get_rss_feeds_status()') only demonstrates a call without giving scenarios or exclusions. The usage context is entirely implicit from the name and description.

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