List RSS feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: feeds are polled every 15 minutes and new items automatically become posts. It also discloses the returned fields, giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool does beyond its safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the tool's core function and behavior, and the second lists outputs and usage context. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool returns, how the feeds behave, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden for the description to carry. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 lists RSS autopost feeds, defines what those are, and specifies the exact return fields. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rss_feed, update_rss_feed, and delete_rss_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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants their RSS autopost feeds,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the no-parameter read-only nature makes such guidance less critical.

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