Feeds Log List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: this tool is a no-op on modern sites ("nothing of this shape to list on any site"). It does not cover auth or pagination behavior, but the deprecation disclosure is the material detail an agent needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the routing/deprecation notice. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description supplies the critical context that the tool is superseded. The one gap is parameter semantics, though this is minor for a tool the description declares non-functional.

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% for three parameters (feed_id, page_limit, page_offset), none of which are mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so the agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone; only the tool's no-op status mitigates the cost.

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+resource ("List feed import logs") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling feeds_import_status. The agent knows exactly what this tool targets and that a superior alternative exists.

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?

Explicitly names the replacement tool (`feeds_import_status`) and the condition that selects it ("reports the outcome of the current import"). It goes further by stating when NOT to use this tool at all (Feeds 3.x removed the log entity).

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