List project feeds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful note beyond that ("Untrusted feed content is returned as data"), plus a hint that the returned rows are last rows rather than a full export, but the placement of that remark under "the sample" makes it ambiguous whether it describes this tool.

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?

It is short, but the phrasing is compressed to the point of being cryptic ("pagination claim", "the sample") and reads as notes rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. Nothing is bloated, but the meaning is obscured.

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 read-only, open-world tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It flags that returned content is untrusted data, but leaves the scope and behavior of the returned feed rows ambiguous.

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 100% and the single `account` parameter is fully documented in the schema as an exact private project profile label with no inherited key fallback. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"One documented v1 feed read" gestures at a read of feed data but never plainly states that it lists project feeds, and it does not clearly separate itself from siblings get_feed and get_feed_sample. The negative framing ("not a full export, pagination claim or feed editor") hints at scope but the core verb+resource pairing is left vague.

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 tells the agent what the tool is not (full export, feed editor) but never says when to choose it over get_feed or get_feed_sample, which are the obvious alternatives. The odd reference to "the sample" actively muddies which sibling this tool replaces.

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