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 mentions 'bounded, redacted response', hinting at pagination or truncation and possible field removal. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Some transparency but insufficient for full behavioral clarity.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy to scan. It is concise but might be slightly under-specified. However, no unnecessary words are present.

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 has two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimal. It does not explain pagination, default behavior, filtering via 'enabled', or the nature of 'redacted'. For a list tool, completeness is lacking, especially with no parameter descriptions in the schema.

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%, meaning the parameter definitions lack descriptions. The description does not mention the 'limit' or 'enabled' parameters at all, failing to explain their purpose or effect. This leaves the agent without crucial context for parameter usage.

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 lists configured MISP feeds, using the verb 'List' and specifying the resource 'configured MISP feeds'. The terms 'bounded' and 'redacted' add nuance, indicating constraints on the response. It is distinct from siblings like 'get_feed_status', though not explicitly distinguishing.

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 (e.g., get_feed_status). It does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without direction on optimal invocation scenarios.

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