list_feeds_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavior. It states the tool lists feeds with unread counts, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, pagination, or ordering behavior. The information is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that is direct and information-dense. It communicates the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant text.

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 one optional parameter and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. The description is adequate but omits mentioning the optional category filter, which is a minor gap for a complete understanding.

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 schema already fully describes the one parameter (category_id) with clear documentation, and coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter; in fact, saying 'all feeds' slightly contrasts with the optional filter.

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 'List all feeds with unread counts' uses a specific verb ('list') and clearly identifies the resource ('feeds') and additional detail ('unread counts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_feed_tool (specific feed) and list_categories_tool (categories).

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 implies usage (when you need to see all feeds) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_feed_tool or list_entries_tool. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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