HackList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the ranking heuristics, duplicate collapsing, ineligibility filtering, and the shape of the response ('why each one ranks and what to watch out for'). It omits data freshness, latency or result stability, keeping it from a 5.

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 opening sentence front-loads the core action, and the dense middle clause lists ranking factors that each carry information. The long run-on factor list is heavy but nearly every clause earns its place by mapping to a real input or behaviour.

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 describes the return content ('why each one ranks and what to watch out for'), and it explains the filtering and ranking behaviour for an 11-param tool. Remaining gaps are a few undocumented params and no note on determinism or data recency.

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 only 45% across 11 params, so the description must carry weight, and it does explain the semantics behind cash_only, country/region-locking, can_travel/in-person, is_student, deadline runway, and include_generic. However it leaves limit, skills, interests and kind unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 (ranks), a specific resource (open HackList opportunities), and a scope (for a specific builder), plus the side effect of explaining each pick. This clearly separates it from the sibling search_opportunities/closing_soon, which merely list rather than rank and explain.

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 gives strong implicit routing: it is the curation/ranking tool that favours specific briefs and drops ineligible events, contrasting with plain listing siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating an explicit 'use this when/not when', so it lands at a clear-context 4 rather than a 5.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are limited to open listings, sorted soonest first, and include prize plus a worth-a-sprint verdict. It omits pagination behavior and how the verdict is derived.

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 no filler; the filter, sort order, and return highlights arrive in the right order. It is efficient, though it spends words on the informal 'worth a sprint' phrasing instead of documenting parameters.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives a usable sketch of results but leaves limit/pagination and min_prize_usd entirely unexplained. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with clear gaps for a 3-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 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — but it only gestures at 'N days' without naming the parameter, its default (7) or its 0-60 bound, and never mentions limit or min_prize_usd at all. An agent cannot infer the prize filtering capability from the text.

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 and resource ('Open listings whose deadline is within N days') plus the ordering ('soonest first'), which clearly separates it from best_opportunities and whats_new. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 deadline-window framing implies the use case (find time-sensitive listings) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to a sibling for other browsing needs. Usage must be inferred from the name and the 'N days' filter.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful context that this is a compatibility shim and that it returns the 'full' listing, but says nothing about error behavior for stale/unknown ids 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the input constraint, with the compatibility note demoted to a parenthetical. Nothing 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger by clarifying how it differs from get_opportunity, but nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as coming from search, which the description merely restates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no format, validation, or provenance detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Fetch the full HackList listing') and pins the input to 'an id returned by search', so the agent knows this is an id-based retrieval, not a discovery call. It does not, however, address the obvious overlap with the sibling get_opportunity, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'for an id returned by search' implies the correct upstream call and the parenthetical indicates the tool's niche (connector/deep-research compatibility). But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus get_opportunity or search, so an agent must infer the routing.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive. Beyond that the description discloses substantive content traits: USD estimates, cash-vs-credits distinction, and eligibility traps (students-only, region-locked, in-person, approval) plus duplicate-listing flagging, which tells the agent what terrain to expect.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose before the field list and accepted inputs. The enumerations of fields are long but each carries informational weight, so there is little waste.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so thoroughly (brief, prize breakdown, deadline, timestamps, apply link, eligibility, duplicates). Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool seems 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents 'ref' with URL/id/title examples. The description restates the same accepted forms without adding syntax or ambiguity-resolution rules, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Full details for one HackList listing') and the single-listing scope distinguishes it from siblings like search, search_opportunities, and best_opportunities. An agent knows this is the detail-lookup path for one known item.

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?

It implies usage by noting the accepted reference forms (URL, id, title), but never says when to choose this over search/fetch or what to do if the reference is ambiguous. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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 openWorldHint, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the snapshot contains (including duplicate detection and data freshness/completeness), though the only explicit behavioral note is that refresh=true re-fetches — no mention of caching behavior when false, cost, or latency of a re-fetch.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited content list, plus a short operational note. Dense and largely waste-free, though the list is long enough that it reads closer to a manifest than a summary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely across all the reported facets. Only the freshness/completeness metrics and cache semantics are left vague, which is minor for a read-only overview 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 coverage is 0% and the single boolean `refresh` is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by stating "Pass refresh=true to re-fetch," which makes the true/false branch meaningful. It stops short of stating that the default false serves cached data.

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 concrete deliverable — a point-in-time snapshot of HackList with open listings by type/category, total prize money, top prizes, duplicates, and data freshness — which distinguishes it as an aggregate dashboard rather than a per-record lookup like get_opportunity. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as best_opportunities or whats_new, so differentiation is inferable but not 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?

"A snapshot of HackList right now" implies a starting-orientation use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names the sibling tools it should be preferred over (best_opportunities, whats_new, search). An agent must infer that this is the entry-point summary rather than a search.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: it returns ids intended to be passed to fetch, which is the key behavioral contract 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is searched and what is returned, with the compatibility note relegated to a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant 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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is searched and that ids are returned for fetch. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing versus the sibling search_opportunities, which would make the definition fully self-sufficient.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search keywords'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, matching, or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (open HackList hackathons, grants and programs) with the search dimension (by keyword) made explicit. It also hints at differentiation from the sibling search_opportunities by labeling itself a compatibility tool, though it never directly names or contrasts with that sibling, so the distinction is implied 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?

The parenthetical 'Compatibility tool for ChatGPT connectors and deep research' implies a usage context, but it never says when to prefer this over the near-identical sibling search_opportunities, nor does it state exclusions. An agent can infer the niche, but the routing guidance is left to guesswork.

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 and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one behavioral detail, that duplicate listings of the same event are collapsed by default, though this largely restates the collapse_duplicates schema default. It does not disclose any result-format, result-count, or throttling 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and ending with the sibling hand-off, which is efficiently structured. The duplicate-collapsing sentence slightly overlaps the schema default and could be trimmed, but nothing 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?

For a 13-parameter search tool with no output schema and only 38% schema description coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete: it never sketches what a result contains or how many are returned, and several parameters lack any explanation. It covers the main filter surface without fully rounding out the 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 38% across 13 parameters. The description usefully maps natural-language filters (keyword, type, category, format, prize, closes soon, recently posted/updated) onto the matching parameters, but leaves sort, limit, free_only, include_closed and collapse_duplicates semantics unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 (Search and filter) plus resource (HackList's AI & Web3 hackathons, grants, bounties, programs), and enumerates the filter axes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like best_opportunities or closing_soon, since it is clearly the general filtered-search entry point.

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 routes the agent to get_opportunity for the full brief and eligibility details of a returned result, which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over search, best_opportunities, closing_soon, or whats_new, so the sibling routing is only partially covered.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add beyond that. It does: it discloses sort order (newest first) and, notably, the date semantics — HackList's own posted date when exposed, otherwise sitemap last-modified time — which materially affects result interpretation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the fallback date logic appended where it belongs. No filler and nothing 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, yet the description never indicates what a listing record contains. Combined with the undocumented open_only default and limit cap, an agent can call the tool but cannot predict the shape or filtering of results.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It only accounts for the 'days' parameter ('last N days'); 'limit' and especially 'open_only' (default true, a meaningful filter that silently excludes closed listings) are never mentioned in either schema or description.

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 and resource with scope: 'Listings posted or updated on HackList in the last N days, newest first.' The recency framing implicitly separates it from deadline-driven siblings like closing_soon and quality-driven ones like best_opportunities, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 "Useful for 'what got added this week'" gives an implied use case, but there is no when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as search_opportunities or closing_soon when recency is not the criterion.

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