Magpie

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level context about what the response includes, but says nothing about the date defaulting behavior or volume of sources returned beyond what the schema states.

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 a tight colon list; every listed element maps to returned content rather than filler. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the shape of the returned payload (possibilities, rationale, unproven claims, knock-on effects, sources). For a two-parameter read-only tool with fully documented schema, that is close to complete, though it could still state what happens when no edition has the capability.

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 100%, so both id and date are fully documented structurally; the description adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail for either. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries all parameter meaning.

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 names a specific retrieval of a single capability and enumerates the facets returned (possibilities, significance, unproven aspects, knock-on effects, sources). It is clearly a read/fetch tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like magpie_search or magpie_today.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are named in the description. The only routing hint (id comes from magpie_today or magpie_search) lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no textual cue on when this beats those tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: result ordering (newest first) and the shape of each item (headline plus five leads). It does not disclose pagination behavior, what happens when the limit is exceeded, or the total number of editions available, so it stops short of rich behavioral detail.

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?

One compact fragment that front-loads the resource and ordering before the payload detail; nothing is wasted. It is not padded, though its terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing returns (headline and five leads per edition) and ordering, which is the most important missing piece. It still omits the meaning/scope of the limit parameter and any sense of the archive's extent, leaving an agent without full information for a listing tool whose only documented field is undescribed.

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 single 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The schema itself supplies type, default (14) and bounds (1-90), so an agent can infer usage, but the description adds no meaning about what limit counts (editions? leads?) or how ordering interacts with it, which is the burden with zero coverage.

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 names the returned resource (available editions) and specifies ordering (newest first) plus payload shape (headline and five leads), which is concrete. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb and no clarification of what an 'edition' is in this domain, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as magpie_today, which a reader could reasonably confuse with a list of editions.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the six sibling tools (magpie_today, magpie_search, magpie_viewing, etc.). The implicit use case (browsing the archive) must be inferred entirely by the agent, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no operational behavior beyond that: nothing about edition freshness, whether the latest edition is cached, or how omitted dates behave. It only characterizes the content, which is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short (two sentences) with no filler, but the first sentence is a long abstract clause chain rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Length is fine; organization serves prose flavor over agent comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches what an edition contains (ingredients, chain of consequences, audience, smallest test, disproof criteria), which helps an agent anticipate return content. However, it omits the sibling selection guidance and any edition/freshness semantics, leaving real gaps for a read tool in a seven-tool family.

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?

There is a single optional 'date' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and US Central timezone plus the omit-for-latest default. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 conveys the subject matter (ideas built from the day's capabilities, with ingredients, consequences, audience, and a falsification test) but never states a concrete verb+resource, so an agent cannot confidently say whether this returns, lists, or generates anything. It gestures at content instead of action. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like magpie_capability or magpie_today beyond the vague 'reasoned ideas, not reported news' clause.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the six sibling tools. The 'reasoned ideas, not reported news' phrase hints at a contrast with news-style outputs but never routes the agent to a specific sibling or condition.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful content context (that the response includes README openings and social mentions), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or default filtering (ai_only defaults true, limit defaults 15), which materially affects results.

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 identifying the ranked resource, with no filler. It is dense but not redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning; it does describe the payload contents reasonably. However, it omits parameter behavior for half the inputs and gives no guidance on edition/date semantics versus siblings, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: 'limit' and 'ai_only' have no descriptions in either schema or prose. The description does not compensate, and it merely implies the daily window without explaining the window enum or the ai_only filter behavior.

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: repos gaining the most stars on a given day, and specifies the return content (README openings, posts, videos, threads). An agent can tell it apart from a generic search tool, though no sibling is named for contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the six sibling tools (e.g. magpie_today, magpie_search, magpie_editions). The agent must infer that this is a trend-ranking feed rather than something to look up explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: results are ranked 'Newest and strongest first'. It does not disclose the default 14-day window, result truncation, or empty-result 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the search scope and ranking behavior front-loaded. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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, has no output schema to explain, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is minor: the default/limits of the time window and result count are left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 67%: query and days are documented, while limit is undocumented in both schema and description. The description enriches query semantics by enumerating acceptable keyword types (model, repo, company, technique, topic), which adds value over the schema example, but it sheds no light on the days/limit scoping parameters.

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 (Find) and resource (AI capabilities across recent editions) and specifies the search axis (keyword: model, repo, company, technique, topic). It implicitly distinguishes itself from fixed-slice siblings like magpie_today or magpie_editions, but never names an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'across recent editions' and 'keyword' implies when this tool applies versus browsing-type siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. With no output schema present, the description's enumeration of returned sections is genuine added value, but it discloses nothing about caching freshness, whether 'today' is server-timezone dependent, or response size.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core concept ("The day's edition"), though the trailing comma-list of sections reads more like a data dump than a crisp purpose statement.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned sections is the right instinct and partially fills the gap. It is still incomplete on the differentiation question — an agent has no basis to choose this over magpie_editions or the section-specific siblings.

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 100% — the single date parameter is documented as YYYY-MM-DD in US Central with omit-for-latest behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource — "the day's edition" — and enumerates its sections (headline, five leads, top possibilities, recommended viewing), so an agent can infer it returns today's curated edition content. However it never states the action (fetch/retrieve) and gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling magpie_editions, which likely covers edition history.

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 guidance on when to call this versus magpie_editions, magpie_possibilities, magpie_rising, or magpie_viewing, all of which overlap with the sections listed here. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no stated trigger condition beyond implicitly 'today'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's value is in disclosing the return shape ('why, what you come away with, who should watch'), which is helpful since there is no output schema, but it adds no auth or rate-limit context.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core resource ('Videos judged worth watching') and then summarizes the output fields. No wasted words, though slightly compressed for a fragment-style sentence.

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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with full annotation coverage and an informative output summary, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is lack of routing guidance among siblings, which matters given six similar magpie_* tools.

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 100% for the single optional 'date' parameter, so the schema already documents format (YYYY-MM-DD), timezone (US Central), and omit-for-latest behavior. The description adds nothing further, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource: curated video recommendations derived from transcripts, with rationale and audience notes. However, it doesn't name a specific action verb (list/get) and gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like magpie_today or magpie_rising.

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 use this tool versus the six sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or context. The agent must infer that this is the place for curated video picks.

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