get_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only uses the verb 'browse' implying read-only, but does not state pagination behavior, default sort/time filters, or absence of side effects. This is a gap for a feed tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields. No redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not hint at filtering, sorting, pagination, or return array structure. It lists return fields but ignores the rich query capabilities, leaving an agent under-informed about how to tailor requests. Minimal viable but incomplete.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters (page, sort, time, limit, category) with clear explanations, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context, defaults, or combination semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it browses the NoFOMO news feed and returns articles with specific fields, indicating a list-read operation. The plural 'articles' and 'feed' distinguish it from the sibling 'get_article' (singular), though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_article, get_trending_debates, or other siblings. The description provides no context for when this should be preferred or how it relates to other feed-reading tools.

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