audit_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior—returning warnings—and scopes them to interoperability/private URL/FreshRSS concerns, but it does not disclose whether the audit performs network fetches, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The word 'Return' implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: it states the action, the result type, and the domain-specific scope.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return shape or arguments. It covers the tool's purpose and specialized scope adequately. The main missing piece is usage context relative to sibling tools, but that is already accounted for in the usage_guidelines score.

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 parameter semantics burden on the description. The input schema is empty and needs no further explanation, leaving the baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('interoperability warnings'), and adds useful specifics ('private URL/FreshRSS gotchas'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool validate_feed, which could plausibly perform a similar audit role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus validate_feed, rebuild_feed, configure_feed, or others. The description states what the tool does but not when it should be preferred or when an alternative is more appropriate.

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