get_feed_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns data ('redacted status and health metadata'), but fails to explain what 'redacted' means, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. For a read tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 9-word sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse and omits important details that could be included without significant length. It earns its place but could be improved.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description still lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'redacted status' entails or provide any context about the feed health metadata. The agent would need external knowledge to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, and the tool has a single required parameter 'feed_id' (integer). The description does not describe this parameter at all, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the type and required flag. This is a significant gap.

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 returns 'redacted status and health metadata' for one MISP feed. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('status and health metadata'), and distinguishes from sibling 'list_feeds' by focusing on a single feed's status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar 'summarize_feed_health' tool, so clarity is high but not perfect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_feeds' or 'summarize_feed_health'. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic purpose.

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