cnet_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns fresh top stories from a public news feed, implying no authentication or destructive side effects, but it does not mention pagination, response format, rate limits, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is thin for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action ('Get CNET top stories') and adds a brief source clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what the tool does and suggests the response shape ('fresh CNET top stories'). However, it does not provide details like the number of stories returned, sorting, or any caveats. Given the simplicity of the tool, this meets the minimum viable level but leaves some ambiguity about the exact response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description correctly conveys that no arguments are needed. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and there is no additional meaning 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CNET top stories', and adds that it comes from the public news feed. It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cnet_headlines or cnet_sections.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any distinguishing conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when top stories are needed, which is already implied by its name and purpose.

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