add_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the operation adds a feed and fetches its articles, indicating a state-changing action. It does not detail edge-case behaviors such as duplicate feeds, validation failures, or what happens if the fetch fails, but it is transparent about the core operation.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, the target resource, and the immediate fetch behavior. It could additionally mention that the feed becomes part of the user's feed list or that fetching may be synchronous, but the existing description covers the essential context.

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 only defines 'url' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds that the URL should point to an RSS/Atom feed, which is helpful context beyond the bare parameter name, but it does not elaborate on URL format, protocol expectations, or validation rules.

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 and resource: 'Add an RSS/Atom feed and fetch its current articles.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like remove_feed, list_feeds, and refresh by indicating this tool creates a new feed subscription and performs an initial fetch.

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 the tool should be used when a user wants to add a new feed, and it contrasts implicitly with remove_feed and refresh. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or clarify that refresh is the appropriate tool for updating an existing feed.

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