qbittorrent_rss_items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as safe; the description adds the return structure (nested folder -> feed -> URL) and the option to include articles with with_data. It does not disclose potential performance implications or default behavior, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and output structure, the second explains the parameter. No redundant content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. The description covers the main purpose, the parameter effect, and the structure. It could add a sentence about when to use versus other RSS tools, but overall sufficient.

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 schema provides no description for with_data (only type and default null), so the description's statement that setting it includes current feed articles adds value. However, it doesn't clarify the effect of null versus false or the exact shape of the article data.

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 the tool returns all RSS items as a nested object of folder -> feed -> URL, clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like qbittorrent_rss_rules or add_feed by focusing on the item tree, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get'.

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 use for retrieving the RSS item hierarchy and explains the with_data parameter behavior. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state exclusions, making the usage guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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