RSS/Atom 订阅读取

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it reads public feeds and returns specific fields but does not disclose additional traits like network behavior, caching, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, the description offers moderate added value.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and efficient, though it could optionally include a second sentence for usage guidelines.

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 well-annotated read-only and idempotent nature, and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the return fields and scope. It lacks details on error handling or non-RSS feeds but is sufficient for a simple fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all four parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb (读取), resource (公开 RSS/Atom 订阅), and the returned data (标题、链接、发布时间、摘要). It also specifies suitability for Chinese blogs, media, and tech sites, differentiating it from sibling tools like cn_webpage_extract and cn_link_preview.

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 usage context by stating its suitability for Chinese blogs, media, and tech sites, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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