rss_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a retrieval, but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering of 'newest', behavior for an unknown feed_id, or whether results are cached/bounded. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 2-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits sibling differentiation (rss_latest overlap) and any note on ordering or failure behavior, but nothing structurally critical is missing.

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 limit (range, default) and feed_id (format example) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the newest articles from one specific RSS feed'), which is clear on its own. However, it does nothing to differentiate from the sibling rss_latest, which by name appears to cover a very similar retrieval of recent articles, so an agent cannot reliably choose between them from this text alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of rss_list or rss_latest as alternatives. The only implied context is that a feed_id must come from somewhere (schema hints at rss_list), leaving routing purely to inference.

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