rss_source_debug

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose whether the tool has side effects or if it is read-only. The phrase 'return logs' suggests non-destructive behavior, but not explicit. With no annotations, the description should clarify.

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?

Extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of omitting critical details. Not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Lacks context about prerequisites, error scenarios, or relationship to other tools. With no annotations and sparse description, the agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 2 parameters (tag, timeout_seconds) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. This is insufficient.

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 states 'Debug an RSS source and return logs in one go.' The verb 'debug' is somewhat vague but implies testing or fetching logs. It distinguishes from siblings like rss_source_get, but could be more specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like book_source_debug or rss_source_get. The description lacks context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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