feed_subscribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that items are written with confidence=0.5, tagged 'feed-item' and 'unprocessed', and that the archivist synthesizes later, plus project-scoping. This is transparent and useful, though it omits details like rate limits or auth requirements.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief introductory paragraph followed by a clear bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (6 parameters, output schema present) and no annotations, the description covers essential behavioral aspects such as automatic writing, tagging, project-scoping, and parameter constraints. It is sufficiently complete to guide an agent, though it does not detail output schema values (acceptable because output schema exists).

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 param descriptions but adds some value (e.g., 'Required.' for project, default and max for interval_min and max_per_poll). However, it does not significantly enhance beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Subscribe to an RSS or Atom feed. New items are written to memory automatically.' This distinguishes it from siblings like feed_list (listing subscriptions) and feed_unsubscribe (removing subscriptions), providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 for when to use this tool (subscribing to feeds) and explains project-scoping behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is good but not top-tier.

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