Fetch Rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool parses feeds and returns a plain-text article list with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, network timeouts, authentication needs, or the fact that malformed/non-feed URLs will be rejected.

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 compact and well-structured with separate sections for purpose, parameters, and return value. Every sentence provides useful information, and the most important operation is stated first.

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?

This is a simple tool with only two parameters, an output schema, and a clear return-value description. The description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could be more complete by mentioning that only valid RSS/Atom sources are supported, but this is largely implied and not a serious gap.

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 50% because the 'url' parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the URL parameter and providing a concrete example URL. The 'limit' parameter is already documented in the schema with a range and default, so the description adds little beyond that.

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 '解析' (parse) and names the exact resource (RSS/Atom feed), plus the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from generic web-fetching siblings like fetch_web and fetch_urls.

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 it is for RSS/Atom feeds only, and the sibling names suggest alternatives, but there is no explicit statement of when to use fetch_rss versus fetch_web, fetch_web_md, or fetch_urls. The agent must infer the usage boundary from the resource type.

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