get_hackernews_top

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or whether the output format is consistent. The mention of 'limit' with a max is a minor positive, but overall transparency is low.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a structured Args section. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with a separate description line.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits information about return values, error handling, or any rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing allowed values for story_type (top, new, best, ask, show, jobs) and documenting default and max for limit. This adds meaningful context that the schema does not provide.

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 it retrieves top stories from Hacker News using a specific verb ('abrufen') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hackernews_story (single story) and get_hackernews_trending (trending) through its focus on a list with filtering by story_type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch_feed or get_news_by_category. There are no hints about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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