catchup_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions the 'mode' parameter for time ranges but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this action is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or how it handles errors. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise note on the 'mode' parameter. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after marking articles as read (e.g., success response, error cases), or address potential side effects like updating unread counts, which sibling tools like 'get_unread_count' might rely on.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by listing the 'mode' enum values, but doesn't provide additional context like default behavior or interaction between parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 action ('mark as read') and target ('all articles in a feed or category'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_article' which might also affect article read status, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this is for bulk operations compared to 'update_article' for individual articles, or if there are prerequisites like authentication needs.

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