fetch_intelligence_feed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key side-effect (saving to LanceDB) and reveals conditional fetch behavior through 'force_fetch: If True, forces fetch regardless of interval_hours.' It doesn't cover duplicate handling or failure behavior, but the core side-effects and throttling context are present.

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 clear summary sentence followed by a tight, minimally verbose Args block. It is front-loaded with the most important information (fetch and persist), and every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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?

The definition covers core behavior, all parameters, and external sources, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, it leaves gaps around when to prefer this tool over sibling search/list tools and around edge-case behavior such as duplicate handling, overwriting, or network failures, making it only partially complete for a tool with write side-effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the Args block is the only parameter documentation. It meaningfully explains all three parameters: category as an optional filter, limit_per_channel as a per-channel override, and force_fetch as an interval override. This adds functional understanding well beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb-object-effect statement: 'Fetches the latest intelligence items across configured feeds (RSS, HN, arXiv) and saves them to LanceDB.' This clearly identifies the tool as an ingestion operation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_intelligence and list_intelligence_records that concern querying existing data.

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 clearly frames the tool as a fetch-and-persist operation, giving an agent enough context to understand it should be used for refreshing/ingesting data rather than searching, listing, or generating digests. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use it, so it narrowly misses the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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