trigger_feed_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Start job discovery' implies a potentially long-running or asynchronous operation, but the description doesn't mention execution mode (sync/async), permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens if the feed is already running. For a tool that likely triggers background processing, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is an execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'starting job discovery' entails, what the expected outcome is, whether it returns a job ID or status, or how to monitor progress. For a tool that likely initiates significant processing, more context is needed.

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 the single parameter 'feedId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added context about feed ID format or sourcing.

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 action ('Start job discovery') and target resource ('for a specific feed'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_feed' or 'list_feeds' by focusing on execution rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar execution tools like 'retry_failed_jobs' or 'enable_feed_auto_run'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., feed must exist, be enabled), when-not scenarios (e.g., feed already running), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'retry_failed_jobs' or 'enable_feed_auto_run' for related operations.

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