add_feed_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and optional category assignment. It does not mention behavior on duplicate URLs, whether the feed is fetched immediately, or side effects like category auto-creation (which is only in the schema, not in the description).

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It has no redundant wording and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple with a complete schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of usage guidance relative to the sibling import_opml_tool, and the absence of behavioral details like duplicate handling, leaves the description only minimally complete for an agent to use without further information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema: 'by URL' aligns with the url parameter, and 'optionally assign to a category' aligns with category. It does not provide additional detail about URL formats or category creation beyond what the schema already contains.

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's function: 'Add an RSS/Atom feed by URL, optionally assign to a category.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') with a defined resource (RSS/Atom feed) and scope (by URL, optional category), which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_feed_tool, list_feeds_tool, and delete_feed_tool.

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 that this tool is for adding a single feed by URL, which distinguishes it from listing or getting feeds. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as for bulk importing via import_opml_tool, or any exclusions.

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