mdl_feeds_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no return shape, no error behavior for a missing or malformed feed_id, no pagination or auth context.

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?

Two words are technically concise but the text is under-specified rather than economical – there is no meaningful content being front-loaded. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficiency.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, a complete description would still state what a feed represents and what is retrieved by id. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this confidently is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about feed_id, which the schema permits as either a positive integer or a constrained string. With the single required parameter undocumented in prose, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Feeds: get" restates the tool name (mdl_feeds_get) without adding scope, distinguishing it from siblings such as mdl_feeds_fetch, or saying what a feed is. It is effectively a tautology of the identifier rather than a description of the 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. The presence of mdl_feeds_fetch as a sibling makes the distinction between "get" and "fetch" important, and the description provides no help in choosing between them.

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