get_feed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (fetch RSS feeds) but doesn't describe key behaviors like error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, network failures), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get RSS feed from any URL, including RSSHub feeds.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential context without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (fetching external feeds), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., feed data format, error responses) or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter well-documented in the schema itself (including RSSHub protocol examples). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating support for RSSHub feeds but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get RSS feed from any URL, including RSSHub feeds.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('RSS feed'), and mentions support for RSSHub feeds, which adds specificity. However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to distinguish from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 usage by mentioning 'any URL' and 'including RSSHub feeds,' which suggests it's versatile for fetching RSS feeds broadly. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other feed parsers or APIs), and there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated. With no sibling tools, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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