feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('retrieves'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'feeds' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence ('Retrieves a list of feeds.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'feeds' are, their format, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 'Retrieves a list of feeds' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (feeds), but it's vague about what 'feeds' refers to in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which include various data retrieval operations like 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes', or 'systemUsers', leaving the specific domain unclear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for retrieving different types of data (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, offering no help in tool selection.

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