Get RSS Feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only, but gives no details on response format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. No wasted words.

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?

While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not mention response behavior or the advanced filtering/pagination capabilities (include/exclude/page_size). With no output schema, the description should provide some context on return values, but it is still adequate for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters (rss_id, exclude, include, page_size). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the ID, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Get a specific RSS feed by ID', which clearly identifies the action (get), resource (specific RSS feed), and the key identifier (ID). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_rss_feeds (plural), which presumably lists all 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?

The description implies this is used when you have a specific RSS feed ID to retrieve, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_rss_feeds or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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