HN Pulse

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

With minimal annotations provided (only title), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent' implying a temporal filter but fails to specify the time window, rate limits, authentication requirements, default behavior when the optional 'count' parameter is omitted, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the action verb. The em-dash efficiently clarifies the domain without redundancy. Every word earns its place with zero 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (documenting return values) and 100% input schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for this simple retrieval tool. It adequately identifies the resource scope, though it could benefit from clarifying the optional nature of the parameter.

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 100%, documenting the 'count' parameter with its valid range (1-20). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 uses specific verb 'Fetch' with clear resource 'Ask HN posts' and clarifies the domain with 'questions posed to the Hacker News community.' This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like GetShowHn, GetJobListings, and GetTopStories by explicitly naming the post type and explaining what 'Ask HN' means.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like GetNewStories or SearchStories. It does not indicate prerequisites, filtering limitations, or recommend this tool over other HN content retrieval options.

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