get_rss_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions fetching and parsing into JSON, omitting details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or behavior with invalid URLs. The description is insufficient for safe usage without these clarifications.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Fetch and parse a Medium RSS feed into JSON') and efficiently lists supported input types. Every word is meaningful with no redundancy.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does but does not specify the structure of the returned JSON (e.g., fields like title, link, pubDate). While common RSS fields are predictable, the agent would benefit from knowing the exact output format for downstream usage.

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 input schema already describes both parameters completely. The description adds value by explaining shorthand formats (e.g., '@username', 'publication-name') and providing examples for feed_url, as well as clarifying that limit defaults to all. This enhances usability beyond the schema alone.

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 fetches and parses Medium RSS feeds into JSON, listing specific feed types (profile, publication, topic, full URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post or get_profile, which serve different purposes.

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 examples of feed URL formats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but there is no guidance on exclusions.

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