add_rss_feed

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the 60-minute auto-fetch cadence and the fact that entries become wiki pages. It covers the side effects of the operation beyond simple 'adds a feed', though it does not mention error cases or prerequisites.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries useful information—the verb+resource, the auto-fetch behavior, and concrete user utterances. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only three simple parameters, the description provides the essential context: the operation, its recurring behavior, and triggering phrases. It does not describe return data or duplicate-feed handling, but for a straightforward subscription tool, the information is sufficient for an agent to act correctly.

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 the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no extra detail about how tags or project affect the feed, but it doesn't need to given the complete schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Subscribe MindBase to a new RSS feed') and resource, immediately distinguishing this from sibling tools that read, search, or ingest content. The mention that entries are compiled into wiki pages further sets it apart as a dedicated feed-subscription tool.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage cues: 'Use this when the user says things like...' with several concrete example phrasings. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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