secop_manage_rag_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say what creating a feed actually does, whether it is idempotent or destructive, what 'sincronizado' means operationally, or which parameters are required for creation versus listing.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the verb front-loaded, so there is no padding, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a zero-required-parameter, seven-parameter tool with two distinct actions and no annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

All seven parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them. The meaning of name, slug, keyword, modalidad, departamento, and chunk_size_chars, and how they differ between list and create, is entirely undocumented.

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 names two verbs (list/create) and a resource (dynamic RAG API feeds), which gives a rough sense of the tool, but 'feeds dinámicos de API RAG' is left undefined and 'sincronizados con el proyecto SCRAPPING' is opaque jargon. It does not differentiate itself from the conceptually adjacent sibling secop_generate_rag_chunks.

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 guidance on when to list versus when to create, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the seven sibling tools. The agent must infer the intended action from parameter defaults alone.

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