get_rss_feeds_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return structure, including available_dates, total_dates, today_feeds with per-feed name and item_count, and generated_at. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any caching or performance implications, though the nature of a status getter implies safety.

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 concise and well-structured, with a title, description, returns section, and example. It front-loads the purpose and provides a clear example of usage, earning a high score.

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 the tool has no parameters and the description provides a detailed return format, it is contextually complete. The example invocation clarifies usage, and the output schema (per context) would supplement type information. The description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, so the description correctly omits parameter details. Per the rubric, zero params yields a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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: '获取 RSS 源状态信息' (get RSS feed status information) and elaborates that it shows configured RSS sources and their data statistics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_rss or get_system_status, which focus on content or overall system status rather than feed-specific 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?

The description implies the tool is for checking RSS source status and statistics but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. For example, no mention of using it when you need feed health metrics vs. using get_system_status for overall system health. This is implied rather than stated.

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