list_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention pagination, field selection, default limit, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. While 'list' implies read-only, the description lacks any additional context about side effects or operational details.

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, short sentence with no redundant or irrelevant content. It is front-loaded and highly scannable, earning maximum conciseness.

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 list operation with a well-documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it does not clarify what the response contains or any explicit behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that feeds belong to a catalog. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and the description does not elevate it.

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 action ('List') and resource ('product feeds') with a specific scope ('for a catalog'), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like list_catalogs or list_products. It is a specific and unambiguous statement of 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?

The usage is implied by the description: one would use this tool to enumerate feeds for a given catalog. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_feed_uploads) or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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