get_rss_feeds_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns JSON with specific fields (available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds, generated_at), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, details the return format in a bulleted list, and ends with an example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the inclusion of both Chinese and English in the example ('get_rss_feeds_status() # 查看所有 RSS 源状态') is slightly verbose, preventing a perfect score.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the structure of the return value, which compensates for the lack of annotations. With an output schema likely covering the JSON structure, the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, it misses behavioral context like read-only nature or error handling, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it naturally meets expectations. It correctly indicates no parameters are needed with the example 'get_rss_feeds_status()', aligning with the schema. This justifies a score above baseline, as it handles the parameter-less case appropriately.

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 RSS 源状态信息' (Get RSS feed status information) and '查看当前配置的 RSS 源及其数据统计信息' (View currently configured RSS feeds and their data statistics). It specifies the verb ('获取/查看' - get/view) and resource ('RSS 源状态信息' - RSS feed status information), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_rss' or 'get_storage_status', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes an example ('get_rss_feeds_status() # 查看所有 RSS 源状态') that reinforces the purpose but doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'get_latest_rss', 'list_available_dates', or 'get_system_status'. There's no discussion of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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