Feeds Feed Get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description omits whether authentication or specific permissions are required, whether the call is idempotent, and what error conditions exist. The output schema covers return shape, not behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-line retrieval tool and every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin to fully equip an agent. The output schema does cover return values, which reduces the burden, but the undefined 'include' parameter and missing safety/permission context leave material gaps.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'By ID' merely restates the name of the required feed_id field, and the optional 'include' parameter is never mentioned, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'single feed' plus the lookup key 'by ID'. It implicitly separates this from feeds_feed_list and feeds_feed_update/delete, but it never names a sibling or states an exclusion, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'by ID' implies the lookup key but not the scenario that selects this tool over feeds_feed_list or feeds_import, leaving the agent with no routing help.

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