freshrss_get_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns only a specific subset of fields, is ~10x more token-efficient than get_articles, and is meant for scanning. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the return-only statement, so it is adequately transparent for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Three crisp sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the efficiency claim is first, the exact return fields are listed, and the usage flow is given. Every sentence 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?

Given the 7 parameters (all optional with defaults) and an output schema declared, the description is quite complete: it covers the return shape, the purpose, and the usage context. It omits authentication prerequisites, but the presence of freshrss_authenticate among siblings makes that implicit. The lack of parameter details and pagination behavior is a minor gap, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Despite schema properties having descriptions, the given signal reports 0% schema description coverage, so the tool description must compensate, but it does not detail any parameters such as count, order, filters, or pagination. It only implies filtering by folder/feed and reading state through the field list, leaving an agent to rely on the schema alone. With no explicit parameter guidance in the description, this dimension is weak.

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 opens with a specific verb and object — 'Get article headlines only' — and immediately sets it apart from the sibling get_articles by emphasizing token efficiency and a restricted field set. It also names get_article_detail for full reads, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states the intended workflow: 'Use this for scanning/triage, then call get_article_detail for articles you want to read in full.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool and when to switch to an alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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