Hacker News Trending

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions fetching by id but fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., non-existent id), rate limits, or any side effects. For a read operation, the description is minimal.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 does not specify return format or structure. For a simple fetch, some users may expect details on response fields. Completeness is adequate but not high.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It links the 'id' parameter to the fetch action, clarifying that it's an HN item id. However, it doesn't explain the format or range. Baseline is 3 given minimal parameter info needed.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches a single HN item by id, specifying it can be a story or comment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hn_search (search) and hn_top (top stories).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance, but the simple nature of a fetch-by-id tool makes usage obvious. Implicitly, it's for retrieving a specific item when you have its id, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals the search scope (full-text, stories+comments) and filters, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, latency, or whether it's read-only. Moderate transparency.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core action and resources. No wasted words; every part adds essential information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema/annotations, the description is fairly complete for basic usage but lacks details on result structure, pagination, and error handling. Adequate but has gaps.

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 low (20%). Description mentions tags with examples and lists min_points, days_ago as filters, adding some value beyond schema. However, it does not clarify query or limit parameters, nor provide details for min_points and days_ago.

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?

Description clearly states 'full-text search across all HN stories + comments', uses a specific verb (search) and resource (HN stories/comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on specific items, recent, top, or user info, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage for general search but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of 'via Algolia' hints at external dependency, but no guidance on when not to use or comparison with siblings.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states minimal filtering criteria (points, days) but omits behavioral traits like sorting, pagination, or return format. For a data-fetching tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. No redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description lacks completeness. No explanation of return format, ordering, or result limits beyond implied filtering.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description only explains 'N points' and 'K days' for two parameters (min_points, days_ago) but ignores 'limit' entirely. Adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states it returns recent Show HN launches with filtering by points and days. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like hn_item, hn_search, hn_top, and hn_user by focusing on a specific category ('Show HN').

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?

Description mentions usefulness for tracking new product launches in indie/AI ecosystem but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.

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?

The description discloses that the tool returns up to 100 items and explains the 'kind' parameter values. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden but only partially covers behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of authentication, rate limits, or return format). It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is only two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first identifies the resource, the second details customization. No unnecessary words.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter variants, and output limit. For a simple listing tool with only two parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could be improved by mentioning the output structure (e.g., story IDs or objects).

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?

Although schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining each 'kind' value (e.g., 'ask' = Ask HN) and stating 'Returns up to 100 items', which clarifies the 'limit' parameter. This goes beyond the schema's enum and numeric constraints, providing useful context for the agent.

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 states 'Current Hacker News front-page stories' and lists the available kinds (top, best, new, ask, show, job). This effectively communicates that the tool retrieves lists of stories. It distinguishes from siblings like hn_item (single item) and hn_search (search) by focusing on front-page listings.

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 when to use the tool (when you want top/best/new/ask/show/job stories) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides enough context for choosing this tool over siblings, but lacks explicit guidance.

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?

The description lists the data returned (karma, account age, recent submissions) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it is adequate but not detailed.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads key information. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what data it returns for a simple profile lookup. It is mostly complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 input schema has one parameter 'handle' with no description. The description implies that 'handle' is an HN username by stating it returns a user profile, but does not explicitly clarify the parameter's meaning or format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 indicates the tool retrieves an HN user profile including karma, account age, and recent submissions. It distinguishes from sibling tools (hn_item, hn_search, hn_show_recent, hn_top) which focus on items or search rather than user data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does without providing context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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