get_rss_feeds_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only describes the output fields and gives an example. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, if it is expensive to call, or any side effects. For a status tool, basic safety and cost information is missing.

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 mostly concise, with purpose stated in the first line, followed by a structured list of return fields. It includes an example. It could be slightly shorter by removing redundant line breaks, but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless status tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure. However, it omits potential error cases (e.g., no feeds configured), performance characteristics, and does not clarify that it is a lightweight read. Given the tool’s simplicity, it is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100% vacuously). Per the calibration rules, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description does not need to add parameter-level details; it focuses on output structure and example, which is appropriate.

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 retrieves RSS feed status information, including configured feeds and data statistics (available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_latest_rss (get feed items), get_storage_status (storage), or get_system_status (system). The verb 'get' and resource 'rss feeds status' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this tool provides an overview of feed health or that it is not for retrieving individual news items. The example shows a simple call without arguments, but no contextual cues help the agent decide between this and get_latest_rss, search_rss, or get_storage_status.

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