feed_watch

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 dedupe semantics, the baseline/cursor lifecycle, per-call cost ($0.003 USDC), and p99 latency (5000ms). It omits error/rate-limit behavior and auth expectations, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the delta-only behavior in the first clause, then workflow, then feed types, then params, then cost/latency. The feed-type enumeration is slightly padded but each block earns its place for an agent deciding whether this tool fits.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return semantics, and it does: it tells the agent it gets only new items plus a cursor to persist. Error handling and what happens on cursor expiry are unaddressed, leaving a minor gap for a stateful tool.

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 coverage is 67% and the description documents all three params, adding meaning the schema lacks (e.g. 'limit = max NEW items returned' versus a plain integer, and cursor as 'from your previous call'). The range/default details it repeats are already in the schema, so this is additive but not exhaustive.

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 ('RSS/Atom Feed Monitor') and immediately scopes it as delta-only ('only new items... never the same item twice'). This distinguishes it from the rss_fetch sibling, which will not track state across calls. An agent can pick the right one without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the when: monitoring for new items rather than one-shot retrieval, and gives concrete use cases (news, GitHub releases, YouTube, subreddits, podcasts, jobs). It also spells out the first-call-then-cursor workflow. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling (e.g. rss_fetch) to contrast against, keeping it from a 5.

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