get_trending_prompts

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

Given no annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: trend score combines votes with recency and favors newer prompts. This explains the algorithm behind trending, though it does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and two simple parameters with defaults, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning parameter usage (e.g., how limit works) or clarifying that the output schema provides prompt details.

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 description does not mention the two parameters (limit, time_window_days) at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use these 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves trending prompts of the community, specifying the resource (trending prompts) and the verb (abrufen/retrieve). It also explains how trending is determined (votes + recency), differentiating it from sibling tools like search_prompts or get_category_rankings.

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 usage for getting currently trending prompts based on a trend score, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_prompts or get_category_rankings. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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