feeds_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior ('It only reads') and discloses the remediation path – returning a `draugr feeds update` command rather than mutating state itself. It stops short of noting cost/latency or cache-location details, but for a zero-param status read it covers the safety-relevant behavior.

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, front-loaded with what is reported, then when to call it, then the behavioral note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the name or padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here. Combined with explicit triggers and the read-only/remediation disclosure, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The text correctly implies a no-argument, whole-cache check by saying 'each dataset a scan reads from'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (report cache status per dataset) and enumerates the exact feeds involved (CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS, Go vuln DB). No sibling tool covers this ground, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions: a report marking a feed stale, govulncheck failing offline, and before relying on exploitability ranking. That is when-to-use guidance with concrete conditions rather than vague implication.

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