Feeds_getFeeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add context: it identifies the tool as a 'Catalog entry' that runs in the Kuudo deployment, which is a meaningful execution-scope disclosure. However, it does not disclose which filters are supported, pagination behavior, or return shape, which a filter-based list operation should surface.

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?

Three short sentences with the most operationally critical caveat ('Catalog entry. Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') front-loaded. The final sentence is mildly redundant ('feed details for the feeds') and could be tightened, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 filtering list operation with an empty schema, additionalProperties allowed, and no output schema — yet the description gives no valid filter names, no pagination behavior, and no sense of what a 'feed detail' contains. An agent has no guardrails for constructing a correct invocation, so the definition is materially incomplete.

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 exposes zero properties and only allows open-ended additionalProperties, so the description's phrase 'filters that you specify' provides real added meaning by telling the agent that arbitrary properties are interpreted as feed filters. It does not enumerate valid filter keys or value formats, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 states a specific action and resource — 'Returns feed details for the feeds that match the filters' — and the plural framing signals a list operation rather than a single-feed fetch. It is clear enough to distinguish from Feeds_getFeed on plural-vs-singular grounds, but it never explicitly names that sibling or the split, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage-related context is the execution caveat 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here,' which clarifies scope but gives no guidance on when to select this tool over Feeds_getFeed, Feeds_createFeed, or Feeds_cancelFeed. No exclusions, alternatives, or triggering conditions are stated.

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