poll_feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the per-call batch cap of four, the rotation policy, the failure behavior (old cache retained, reason logged), and the continuation condition. It omits permission/auth requirements and any rate-limit beyond the batch size.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences covering batch scope, the force override, return fields, and error/continuation behavior. Nearly every sentence earns its place; only the enumerated return keys veer toward output-schema territory.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return keys (ok, failed, remaining, per-source results) and failure semantics. The main gap is the undocumented `source` parameter, which an agent cannot interpret confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains force well (ignores fetch interval) but says nothing about the `source` parameter's purpose or acceptable values, leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (poll due RSS/Atom sources) plus concrete scope: at most four per call, rotated by last fetch time. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like feed_manage, feed_query, and feed_status, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives actionable when-to-use signals: call repeatedly while remaining>0, and set force=true to bypass the fetch interval. It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling tools (feed_query, feed_status) for read-vs-poll decisions.

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