list_feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the default page size (50 feeds) and the purpose (feed discovery), but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any other side effects. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a straightforward list tool with three optional parameters. It covers the primary use case (discovering feed IDs), output fields, and a default. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with all three parameters (skip, limit, timeZone) having descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-related detail beyond the schema, mentioning the default limit of 50. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List all available RSS/news feeds' and specifies the return fields (names, IDs, latest publish times). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on feed items, not feeds themselves.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover feed IDs needed by other tools.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tools are item-focused, the context is sufficiently clear.

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