validate_feed

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'strict local' implies a read-only, non-destructive validation operation and rules out remote validation, but it does not state whether validation returns a report, throws errors, or modifies anything. This is thinner than expected for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise phrase, 'Strict local RSS/XML validation,' with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word earns its place. Though terse, it is an efficient use of the description field.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed, and an output schema exists to specify return values. However, the description does not clarify what object is being validated (e.g., the currently staged feed, a local file) or what 'strict' entails. For a simple no-arg tool this is a minor but real gap.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters, and per the rubric a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the schema.

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 states a clear action and resource: validation of RSS/XML, with 'strict' and 'local' adding specificity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like audit_feed or configure_feed because only this tool is explicitly a validator. It is not a full sentence, but it is not a tautology and an agent can tell what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use validate_feed versus any of the siblings. There is no mention of preconditions, recommended workflow (e.g., before publish_batch), or alternatives. The agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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