feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by indicating the tool exposes URLs and indexes dumps/system messages, but it does not describe more behavioral details such as output format, pagination, or access requirements.

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 concise sentence that gives the core resource and its relationship to dumps. It is slightly awkwardly phrased, but it contains no filler or redundant content.

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 parameterless read-only tool with existing annotations and a simple listing purpose, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what resource is exposed (feeds with URLs) and what categories are included (dumps, system messages), but leaves the exact response shape unspecified.

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 meaningful for the description to add beyond the schema. With schema coverage at 100% and no inputs to clarify, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as the ADT feeds (dumps, system messages) with their URLs, clearly linking it to the 'dumps' sibling as an index behind it. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the resource and scope are still recognizable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'dumps'. The phrase 'the index behind dumps' implies a relationship, but it does not state 'use this to list available feeds' or exclude other use cases.

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