feeds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'retrieves', but does not mention session requirements, error behavior, pagination, or any side effects. The minimal verb gives some transparency but lacks crucial context.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list retrieval, the description provides the core action. However, it lacks any explanation of what feeds are, the structure of the returned list, or any prerequisites like authentication. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be valuable.

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 schema coverage is complete by definition. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with no parameters, this is acceptable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'feeds', making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not explain what 'feeds' represents or differentiate from sibling tools, though no sibling appears related to 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context about prerequisites or alternative tools. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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