catalog_list_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation and clarifies feed types, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or whether feeds of all types (CSV and XML) are always included.

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 a single compact sentence with no redundancy. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making it highly scannable and information-dense.

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 low-complexity list tool, this description provides the essential operation and scope. However, the lack of any mention of pagination/limit behavior and return shape leaves gaps, especially given there is no output schema to clarify the response.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for catalog_id via 'attached to a catalog' and clarifies the feed types, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's semantics or behavior, leaving it under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a precise resource ('product feeds (CSV/XML uploads)') and scope ('attached to a catalog'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like catalog_list_products and catalog_list_product_sets. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies the usage context: call it with a catalog_id to retrieve feeds for that catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over catalog_list_products or mention any exclusions such as filtering capabilities or pagination behavior.

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