arstechnica_news

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the source (public RSS feed) and that it returns fresh stories, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as the number of stories returned, ordering, or any potential rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks explicit safety or constraint information.

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 and front-loaded: two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by a clarifying detail about the data source. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward function—the description is sufficient. It communicates what the tool does and where data comes from. A minor gap is that it does not specify the shape of the returned data (e.g., list of story objects with titles/links), but this is not critical for a no-parameter tool and is largely implied.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist. Per calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4 since the schema covers everything and no compensation is needed.

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 action: 'Get Ars Technica top stories.' It names the resource (Ars Technica) and the specific scope (top stories from public RSS feed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arstechnica_headlines or arstechnica_sections by focusing on the 'top stories' feed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer arstechnica_headlines or arstechnica_sections, nor does it state any exclusions or contexts. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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