mark_read (unavailable — configuration error)

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

Read-only annotations are present and uncontradicted, and the description does disclose a real behavioral fact: the tool is unusable until FEEDLY_TOKEN is configured, and it names the paths checked. But it says nothing about what the tool actually does once working (what gets marked, whether the change is reversible), so the disclosure is incidental rather than useful tool behavior.

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 text is organized in a workable order (problem, remedy, escalate to doctor), but it spends every sentence on configuration and none on the tool itself, so nothing is front-loaded that helps an agent select or invoke it.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so very little description is strictly required, and it correctly signals the tool is dead. However, as a definition for mark_read it is effectively empty: a reader learns the server is broken but never what the tool is for.

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 schema has zero parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 4. The description neither needs to nor does add parameter meaning, so this dimension is unburdened.

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 never states what mark_read does. It is entirely a configuration-failure notice ('could not start: No Feedly token found'), so an agent cannot learn the tool's verb or resource, let alone distinguish it from get_articles, unread_counts, or search_feeds.

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 only guidance given is how to fix the environment and an instruction not to work around the failure. There is no statement of when to call mark_read versus any sibling tool, or what inputs select it.

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