Add Feed Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It says nothing about duplicate-feed handling, URL validation, required permissions, or error behavior for an invalid feed URL.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause ('by URL', 'optionally assign to a category') carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the parameters. Still, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it omits duplicate handling and failure modes, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 both parameters (url and category) are already fully documented in the schema, including the auto-create behavior for categories. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 clear verb ('Add') plus a specific resource ('RSS/Atom feed') and the mechanism ('by URL'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling import_opml_tool, which also adds feeds in bulk, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as import_opml_tool for bulk additions. The only contextual hint is the word 'optionally' for the category, which does not route the agent between tools.

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