get_trending_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral aspects: the two time modes, extraction modes, the dependency on config/frequency_words.txt, and the return format. However, it does not mention potential side effects, data source specifics, or failure 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary line, Args block, Returns, and Examples. It is appropriately sized for three parameters, with no redundant fluff, though the formatting could be streamlined for machine readability.

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 moderately simple, and the description covers the essential usage, parameters, and examples. The mention of an output schema (though not shown) reduces the need to detail return structure. Missing context includes how 'daily' vs 'current' differ in time boundaries and whether any news source filtering applies.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning and default values: top_n, mode ('daily' vs 'current'), and extract_mode ('keywords' vs 'auto_extract'). It also clarifies the config dependency, making the semantics richer than the schema alone.

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 the tool's function as obtaining trending topic statistics, with verb-resource structure ('获取热点话题统计'). It distinguishes the tool by showing its focus on topic frequency statistics rather than raw news lists, though it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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 provides detailed mode options and examples, implying usage patterns, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative siblings like analyze_topic_trend or get_latest_news. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations.

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