get_latest_rss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: supports multi-day queries, data is stored separately from trending news, shows in time stream format, and has defaults/limits for parameters. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when limits are exceeded. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, context explanation, Args section with parameter details, Returns section, and Examples. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor issue is that the Chinese text might be slightly less accessible to some agents, but the structure is excellent.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists, the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from siblings, documents all parameters thoroughly, specifies the return format, and provides usage examples. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter semantics. It explains all 4 parameters with clear meanings, defaults, constraints, and examples: feeds (RSS source IDs, optional), days (recent N days, default 1, max 30), limit (result count, default 50, max 500), include_summary (whether to include article summaries to save tokens).

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 tool's purpose: '获取最新的 RSS 订阅数据' (get latest RSS subscription data). It specifies the resource (RSS data), distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning it's separate from '热榜新闻' (trending news) and shows content in time stream format, making it distinct from tools like get_latest_news or search_rss.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool: for getting latest content from specific RSS sources in a time stream format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning RSS data is stored separately from trending news. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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