ado_get_feed

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it accepts ID or name, but provides no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema already convey. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, perfectly concise, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with annotated safe behavior and clearly described parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could briefly mention what is returned (e.g., a feed object), but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates 'by ID or name,' which aligns with the schema but does not add significant new meaning beyond the existing property descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Get a single feed by ID or name,' clearly indicating the action (Get) and resource (feed), and distinguishes from the sibling tool ado_list_feeds which lists multiple feeds.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ado_list_feeds. The context is implied but not stated; the description could benefit from specifying that this is for retrieving a single feed when the ID or name is known.

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