feed_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, no fetch triggering, and shows metadata. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, it adds useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Concise: 4 sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance, constraints, and parameter description. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 (one optional param, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral constraints, and parameter. It is fully informative for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the same information for the 'project' parameter as the schema, without adding new semantics or examples. No additional value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'active RSS/Atom feed subscriptions', with scope 'visible to you'. It also specifies use cases like checking for duplicates and finding feed_id for feed_unsubscribe(), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like feed_subscribe and feed_unsubscribe.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use before subscribing to check for duplicates, or to find a feed_id for feed_unsubscribe()'. It also clarifies what it does not do: 'Does not trigger a fetch — the archivist polls on schedule', preventing misuse.

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