util_feed_discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool makes network requests, may be rate-limited, or what side effects (e.g., data retrieval) occur. The phrase 'find feeds' is too vague for an agent to understand operational characteristics.

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 extremely concise at 14 words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core function, but fails to include any structural elements like input or output hints. A minimally viable description would need more content, so 'concise' here is a trade-off.

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 loose input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent completely uninformed about how to invoke the tool or interpret results. For a network-based discovery tool, this completeness gap is severe—the agent cannot reliably use it without external knowledge.

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 one parameter 'arguments' of type object with additionalProperties true, meaning any properties can be passed. The description adds no meaning to this parameter—it does not specify expected keys like 'url' or 'feedType'. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical omission.

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 finds RSS, Atom, and JSON feeds, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like util_sitemap_probe or util_url_health, which focus on other aspects of web resources.

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 an agent wants to subscribe instead of scrape, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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