search_feeds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the effect of feedId, and the nuanced project property behavior (null for org-scoped feeds, automatic project addressing). This goes beyond a minimal description, though it stops short of detailing pagination or response structure.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and each additional sentence adds valuable context (feedId behavior and project-scoping nuance). Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the parameter's effect, and an important edge case (project vs org-scoped feeds). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it effectively, though it could mention authentication prerequisites or pagination explicitly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that supplying feedId also lists packages and versions, which is not stated in the parameter description. This improves the agent's understanding of the parameter's semantic effect.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and clearly identifies the resource (Azure Artifacts feeds), including the REST endpoint. It also distinguishes the tool's behavior when feedId is passed (listing packages + versions), which differentiates it from sibling tools focused on work items, repositories, and pull requests.

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 usage context: browse feeds by default, pass feedId to additionally list packages and versions. It also explains the project-scoping behavior for feeds, which helps the agent decide when and how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling feed-specific tool exists, so this is sufficient.

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