RuntimeListFeeds

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

The description discloses the basic behavior: listing feeds or reading specific types. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or resource consumption. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the primary functionality and mentions return behavior for the default case. However, it lacks details on the structure of returned data for specific feed types, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, slightly more detail on what each feed type returns would improve completeness.

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?

Description coverage of input schema is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enum values, defaults). It mentions feed types but does not elaborate on their meaning or structure beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 lists available ADT runtime feeds or reads a specific feed type, with explicit enumeration of feed types (dumps, system_messages, gateway_errors). This differentiates it from sibling tools which focus on other runtime operations like profiler traces or system messages.

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: without feed_type it returns feed descriptors, with a specific feed_type it reads that feed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context of siblings being completely different (activation, creation, etc.) somewhat compensates, but explicit guidance is missing.

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