Feeds Tamper List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but 'List' adequately signals a read-only, non-mutating operation. It adds nothing beyond that implied safety profile – no note on the feed scope, no pagination or ordering 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 short sentence with zero wasted words and the verb/resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, the description leaves the feed identifier format and the notion of what a 'tamper plugin' is unaddressed, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 only says 'for a feed', which loosely maps to feed_id. It does not clarify whether feed_id is a machine name, numeric ID, or configuration entity ID, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('tamper plugins') scoped to a feed, which distinguishes it from near-parallel siblings like feeds_parser_list, feeds_fetcher_list, and feeds_processor_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling list tools that list other plugin categories. An agent must infer that this is for enumerating tamper plugins available to a given feed.

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