list_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the phrase 'with article counts' discloses key behavior about the returned data. It does not mention auth, caching, or ordering, but these are minor for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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 short sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning ('configured feeds', 'article counts').

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the resource and the key expected output field. It could add ordering or live-vs-cached count details, but these are not required for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is already fully complete. The description adds no parameter detail, and none is needed; this matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 an explicit verb ('List') and resource ('configured feeds') and adds a useful output detail ('with article counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that operate on article content (search, recent, trending, digest) or mutate feeds (add_feed, remove_feed).

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 when to use this tool: when the agent needs to see configured feeds and their article counts. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or point to alternatives such as source_health for feed status or refresh for live counts, leaving some routing to inference.

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