Feeds Processor List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but the operation is trivially a zero-parameter read and says nothing that contradicts that. It does not disclose whether results are cached, whether processors must be enabled/configured first, or whether the list is per-site or global, which is the minimum context a catalog-style list would need.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is not padded, but it is so terse that there is no structure to speak of beyond the one clause.

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 explained, and with no parameters the surface area is small. Still, in a catalog with four sibling list tools, the description should at least anchor what a 'processor' is relative to parsers, fetchers and tampers; that conceptual context is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('feed processors'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the near-identical siblings feeds_parser_list, feeds_fetcher_list and feeds_tamper_list, which all use the same 'List available X' pattern; the distinction between a processor, parser and fetcher is left entirely to the reader.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the three sibling list tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what the agent should do with the result. The only guidance is the implied read-only nature of the verb 'List'.

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