rss_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (success bool, message, registered tools, ports, comparison vs glance-mcp). However it says nothing about side effects or that this is a safe, read-only introspection call, and the return detail overlaps the existing output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then headers for Return Format and Examples. The sections are short, though the Return Format block largely restates what the output schema already provides.

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 no-arg introspection tool with an existing output schema, the definition is essentially complete: it names the purpose and shows the call. It could be fuller only by stating when to prefer it over the ops siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the empty-object call. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific purpose: a capability summary and operation list for the rss/reader toolset. The verb+resource is clear (help/introspection), though it does not differentiate itself against siblings like feeds_ops or reader_ops by explaining what those siblings do instead.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling ops tools, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The example shows the trivial call signature but not the situation that should trigger it.

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