rss_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions 'fetch' but does not disclose network dependency, timeouts, error handling, caching, or what 'parse' entails regarding output. The brevity obscures important side effects for an agent invoking a network tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could benefit from minimal additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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 the simple two-parameter tool and complete schema descriptions, the description is adequate but lacks completeness regarding return format, error conditions, and network behavior. For a tool making external calls, more context is warranted.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain that 'count' limits number of items or that 'url' must be an RSS feed. The description is neutral here.

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 fetches and parses RSS feeds from any URL, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like web_search, news_search, and read_page, which involve different types of content or actions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_search or news_search. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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