get_feed

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the route-dependent branches and environment variable configuration, but does not describe return format, error behavior, pagination, or side effects. For an unannotated tool, this is a notable gap in transparency.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: first states the core function, second explains the conditional modes, third configures the instance. Front-loaded and free of redundant filler. Excellent conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'feed content' looks like, how feeds are presented, and any limitations. It covers the two operational modes but omits return value structure, error handling, and rate limits. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this incomplete context leaves the agent under-informed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'route' and 'params' already described. The description mostly restates the route omission behavior already present in the schema and mentions the environment variable (not a parameter). It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 tool's primary action ('Get RSSHub feed content') and immediately distinguishes between fetching a specific feed (with route) and fetching all subscribed feeds (without route). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that sets it apart from sibling tools like search_routes or list_subscriptions.

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?

Provides explicit conditional guidance: 'If route is provided, fetch specific feed. If no route is provided, fetch all subscribed feeds.' This tells the agent exactly when to use each mode. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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