get_rss_feeds_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It provides a detailed return structure (available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds, generated_at) and indicates a read-only status check. It does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, but the output detail and 'status' wording make the non-destructive nature clear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a concise purpose statement, a clear return format breakdown, and an example. Every section serves a purpose with no redundant text. The format is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 parameterless status tool, the description is complete. It thoroughly explains the output schema even though an output schema is present, and the example clarifies usage. No gaps that would prevent correct selection and invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds value by showing an example call with no arguments, confirming no input is needed. This meets the baseline for 0-param tools and the example slightly enhances clarity.

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 it retrieves RSS feed status information, with a specific verb ('获取'/'查看') and resource (RSS 源状态). It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like get_system_status by focusing specifically on RSS feeds and their data statistics.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool to view RSS feed status. The example shows how to invoke it with no arguments, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_system_status or get_storage_status, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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