add_news_source

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: live-probing before saving, idempotency (consistent with idempotentHint=true), and a cap on list size. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this without contradiction.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action. Subsequent sentences add essential behavioral and usage details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, simple input schema, and output schema present), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the live-probing behavior for the 'url' parameter, which is not in the schema description. The 'name' parameter is already well-described in the schema as a 'Short slug' with regex pattern.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add an RSS/Atom feed to the crawler's source list.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'remove_news_source' (removal) and 'news_sources' (likely listing).

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 description provides explicit usage cues: 'Use when someone says "follow <site>'s news" / "加个新闻源".' This helps the agent match user intent. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling context makes it clear.

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