ariel_get_saved_feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping detail that it operates on the authenticated user's own feeds (implying auth is required), but doesn't disclose whether saved and pinned feeds are returned together or separately, ordering, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. Verb, scope, and resource are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place for a tool this simple. There is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema content.

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 simple list-fetch tool with one optional fully-documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials. The 'authenticated user's' framing signals the auth requirement, and the format parameter handles the output shape. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what a single feed entry looks like, but that is a light gap for a tool this trivial.

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 coverage is 100% — the format parameter is fully documented with enum values, the default ('json'), and its purpose ('compact text for LLM consumption'). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('saved and pinned feeds') scoped to the authenticated user. It is immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ariel_get_feed and ariel_get_author_feed, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the word 'saved'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions ariel_get_feed, ariel_get_timeline, or ariel_get_list_feed, nor any condition that would select this tool over them. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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