web.feeds

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior. It does not say whether 'remove' is destructive or reversible, whether 'add' validates or fetches the URL, what 'reindex' costs or triggers, whether state persists, or whether any permissions are required.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the operations trailing, so nothing is padded. But the compression is under-specification rather than efficient writing, and the Polish phrasing sits oddly against English sibling names.

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 four-parameter, multi-action tool that includes a destructive 'remove' and an undefined 'reindex', with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent has no basis for choosing between actions or knowing their side effects.

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 0% across 4 parameters. The description echoes the four action enum values, giving marginal mapping value, but adds no meaning for 'url', 'name', and especially 'intent', which remains entirely opaque in both schema and description.

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 names a concrete resource ('Rejestr kanałów RSS/Atom') and enumerates the operations (list/add/remove/reindex), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'warstwa świeżości' is the only hint at how this differs from siblings like web.search or web.cache, and the fragmentary phrasing leaves the tool's overall role vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to register a feed versus using web.search, web.brief, or web.drift, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The action list implies what operations exist but not the conditions that select this tool over its siblings.

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