Glitchwire News

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ({id,title,text,url,metadata}), which is valuable since no output schema exists. It omits error behavior when the id is not found, but that is a minor gap for a simple read.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then appends the return shape in one compact parenthetical. No sentence or clause is wasted.

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?

Complete for a one-parameter read tool: annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the return format since there is no output schema. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with the get_article sibling and missing not-found behavior.

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 100% and the id parameter already documents its pattern and that it comes from search results. The description only echoes the provenance ('from search'), adding essentially no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a Glitchwire article') with the required key ('by id'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_article, leaving an agent unable to tell which retrieval tool to pick without opening both schemas.

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?

'(from search)' implies the upstream step and therefore when this tool is appropriate, which is genuine implied guidance. But there are no explicit when-not conditions and no mention of the alternative get_article, so usage must be inferred.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the response is cleaned/ad-free markdown containing title, date, author, source URL, and full body, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and return contents come first and the slug-source instruction follows. 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?

With a single fully-documented required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the only remaining burden is describing what is returned — which the description does explicitly. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the slug pattern/example is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the provenance of the slug (from search_news/latest_news), which is workflow guidance rather than new parameter semantics.

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 (fetch) and resource (one Glitchwire article) plus the return format (clean, ad-free markdown) and the fields it contains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to search_news/latest_news as the source of the slug rather than duplicating their discovery role.

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 directs the agent to take the slug from search_news / latest_news results, which is clear context on the intended workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. don't call it with a free-text query), but the dependency chain is unambiguous.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the recency-ordering behavior ('most recent'), which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result volume, ordering guarantees, or pagination.

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 that names the resource, the scope, and the optional filter with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and a complete schema, the core call information is present, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. However, nothing tells the agent the ordering guarantee or what happens when category is omitted, leaving minor gaps for a feed-style 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 100%, so both parameters (limit with default/max, category enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that category filtering is optional, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured field.

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 ('Get Glitchwire's most recent articles') with a scope qualifier ('most recent') and an optional filter. It is clearly distinguishable from search_news and get_article by the recency/feed semantics, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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 implies context ('most recent articles... optionally filtered by category') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to search_news or get_article as alternatives for different needs. An agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the return shape ({results:[{id,title,url}]}) and the downstream fetch handoff, which is useful, but it says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste, and the core capability is front-loaded before the return-shape detail.

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 supplies the result shape and the id-to-fetch workflow, which covers the main gaps. It falls short of full completeness by omitting result-count limits and how results are ranked or truncated.

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 100% with a single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, quoting, or matching behavior beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 (Search) and resource (Glitchwire's technology news archive), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_news, which sounds like the same capability, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this to find articles and then pass an id to fetch. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. search_news or latest_news, and no exclusions or conditions given.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the result ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields (title, url, markdown_url, excerpt, categories, date, author), which is real added value for a no-output-schema tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The scope and ordering are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the return-shape information that a downstream caller needs.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and it covers ordering and search scope. It omits anything about pagination, zero-result behavior, or rate limits, but for a simple read-only search tool with fully documented parameters, it is close to complete.

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 the baseline is 3; every parameter already documents its own semantics, including the AND-matching behavior and the category enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides and largely restates the AND-match rule.

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 (Search) and resource (Glitchwire's full article archive) plus the fields searched (title + excerpt) and ordering (newest first). It differentiates implicitly from latest_news (recent-only) and get_article (single item), but never names those siblings explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'full article archive' suggests keyword retrieval versus the recency-oriented latest_news, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to a sibling such as search or get_article. An agent can guess the intent but gets no disambiguation guidance.

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