get_recent_feed_items

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default time window (120 minutes) and item count (50), and clarifies the cross-feed scope. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or ordering, but the 'get' verb makes this an obvious read operation. The information provided is useful and adds context beyond the schema.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It avoids fluff and every sentence contributes either the core functionality or a usage recommendation. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 simple read-only tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description captures the essential context: cross-feed scope and default time window. It doesn't describe the return format or pagination behavior, but those are common for such tools and can be inferred. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to know when and why to invoke it.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the defaults for recencyInMinutes and limit but adds no deeper meaning about parameter interactions, pagination mechanics, or timezone handling. It provides no additional value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent items across all feeds') and explicitly notes that it works 'without specifying a feed,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_feed_items. It is action-oriented and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this to catch up on the latest news without specifying a feed.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the scope statement implies using a feed-specific tool when a particular feed is needed. This is adequate guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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