list_feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation and reveals the output contents, including last poll time, items ingested, and errors, which gives the agent a solid expectation of side-effect-free behavior and return information.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the action and output, the second gives concrete invocation examples. Every part adds useful information with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete. It clearly indicates the resource, the user scope, and the contents of the returned data. No output schema exists, but the description provides what is needed for an agent to call and 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-level information, but none is needed. This matches the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all RSS feeds the user is subscribed to.' It also specifies the return scope by listing the included stats, making the tool’s purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_rss_feed and ingest_source.

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 explicitly provides when to use the tool with natural language triggers: "what feeds am I subscribed to?" or checking RSS subscriptions. It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of including exclusions.

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