get_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 adds useful context such as pagination support and special category IDs, which are behavioral traits not covered elsewhere. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key features (filtering, pagination) and critical details (special IDs). Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, filtering, and pagination well, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or return values, which are important for a read operation in a feed management context. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining special category IDs (-1 to -4, 0) and implying pagination (via '支持分页'), which provides semantic context beyond the schema's technical descriptions. Since no parameters are required, this compensates well.

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 verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('tt-rss 的订阅源列表' meaning 'tt-rss feed list'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on feed retrieval rather than articles (get_article, get_headlines), categories (get_categories), or feed management (subscribe_feed, unsubscribe_feed).

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 context for usage by mentioning filtering by category and pagination support, which helps understand when to apply these parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_categories (for category lists) or get_headlines (for article lists), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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