Get RSS Feeds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get list of available RSS feeds', which implies a read operation but does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or whether all feeds or only user-accessible feeds are returned. The description adds minimal insight beyond the tool's name and title.

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, tightly worded sentence: 'Get list of available RSS feeds'. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it leaves ambiguity about the response structure and does not clarify the relationship with the sibling tool 'get_rss_feed'. A sentence or two about what the list contains or when to prefer this over the singular variant would make it more complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to document parameters, and no parameter details are needed. The absence of parameters is fully captured by the schema, so the description needs no further elaboration.

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 function: 'Get list of available RSS feeds' with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'RSS feeds'. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_rss_feed' (singular) by using 'list' and 'feeds', though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rss_feed' (singular). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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