rss_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus 'newest first' communicates a read-only, sorted retrieval, and the scope ('all configured feeds') is useful. However, it says nothing about pagination, how many feeds must be configured, or what happens when no feeds match a category.

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?

One compact sentence with the scope, ordering, and optional filter front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and zero required params, the description is adequate: scope, ordering, and filtering are clear. With no output schema, a note on the returned article fields would close the remaining gap.

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%, so the schema already documents limit (1-50, default 15) and category (with the rss_list pointer). The description adds only the notion of ordering and optionality, which the schema largely covers; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the newest articles across all configured RSS feeds') plus the ordering (most recent first). It distinguishes itself from rss_feed only implicitly via 'across all configured feeds'; it never names the sibling that returns a single feed's items.

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 phrase 'optionally limited to one category' hints at a filtering use case, and the category param points at rss_list for discovering values, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-rss_feed guidance. Usage is implied by the aggregation scope rather than stated.

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