list_active_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only style operation through 'Return' and discloses output granularity ('compact summaries') and temporal scope ('currently emitted'). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or snapshot consistency, but there is no suggestion of side effects.

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?

A single, focused sentence with no wasted words. The action, resource, scope, and output format are all front-loaded and necessary.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing operation with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is explicit sibling routing guidance, but that is already accounted for in usage_guidelines.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter meaning is required.

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?

States a specific action ('Return compact summaries'), a clear resource ('entries currently emitted into feed.xml'), and a scoping constraint ('currently emitted'). The compact-summary wording also signals the output shape. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_entry or get_feed, but the scope is precise enough to distinguish it.

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 'currently emitted into feed.xml' phrase implies the tool is for inspecting the live feed entry set, so usage context is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no direction to alternatives such as get_entry or find_similar_active_entries.

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