direct_list_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature with 'READ' and the mandatory ID prerequisite, which is useful. However, it lacks details about error handling, response format, or behavior with invalid IDs, leaving some gaps for a tool without annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then provides the critical requirement (IDs) and source. Every word adds value 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 this simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core behavior, the need for IDs, and where to get them. It doesn't describe return structure, but with no output schema and a straightforward API call, the description is reasonably complete, though a note on what it returns would push it to 5.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly states 'Pass feed ids from create/add or UI,' giving semantic meaning to the `ids` parameter beyond its type definition. It clarifies what IDs to pass and where to obtain them, which is essential for correct use.

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 begins with 'READ: feeds.get', clearly identifying it as a read operation for feed objects, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_add_feed and direct_delete_feeds. It states the API requires IDs, making the specific scope (get by IDs) clear.

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?

Provides clear context that IDs are required and tells the agent to source them from create/add operations or the UI. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though the read-only nature and ID requirement are clear.

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