refresh_feeds_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing network access, slowness (30-60s), and that it refreshes feeds. It falls short of fully explaining side effects on cached data or failure behavior, but the provided context (network, slow, 'for all feeds') is substantial.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. The most critical information (purpose, performance, alternatives) is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. Excellent structure.

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?

Given the tool's network complexity and slow execution, the description adequately covers what it does, how long it takes, and how it relates to background timers and cached reads. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but mentioning potential side effects or failure modes would make it fully complete. Still, for a single-parameter refresh tool, this is nearly sufficient.

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 sole parameter feed_id is already well described in the schema ('Specific feed ID to refresh (optional, refreshes all if omitted)') with 100% coverage. The description's extra note about 'all feeds' confirms the default but adds no new semantic detail, so the schema-driven baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Crawl feed sources over the network for new content.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with list_entries for reading cached content, making it unmistakable as the refresh/update operation.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer the systemd timer for background updates' and 'Use list_entries to read cached content.' This tells the agent when not to call this tool directly and points to the appropriate alternative, meeting the highest bar for usage guidance.

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