Read feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve,' which hints at a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say whether it has side effects, requires ownership or authentication, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is not misleading, but is far from transparent.

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 one sentence, free of filler, and front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes to the core message, 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 the tool's low complexity, 100% parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. The main gap is the lack of guidance about the optional owner parameter for external/feed memory access, but that is already captured in the schema, so this is a minor shortfall.

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 100%, so memoryTopic and owner are already documented with concrete meaning. The description adds 'given a topic,' which aligns with memoryTopic but does not explain the owner field or when it is required. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('the latest data from the feed'), so the tool's core function is clear. It does not differentiate from siblings like download_data or download_files, but the feed-specific wording makes it reasonably distinct.

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 when to use the tool—when you want a topic's feed data—but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives such as update_feed or download_data. With six siblings present, this lack of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer the right choice.

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