collider_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It provides meaningful behavioral context: results are fresh, come from one public RSS section, and items in video categories are returned with type video and cannot be read through the article endpoint. It does not describe pagination, ordering, limits, or output fields, but for a simple read-only headline fetcher the disclosed behaviors are substantive.

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?

Three short sentences provide purpose, source/freshness, and a relevant caveat with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one required parameter, a complete enum, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (fresh headlines from one section) and the main exception to reading items (video type). An agent can select the tool and know it must supply a section slug from the enum. It could add output-shape details, but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage ('Collider RSS section slug') and an explicit enum, so the baseline applies. The description adds only that the section is from one public RSS feed and notes the video-category behavior; it does not explain the individual enum values or map categories to expected item types. It neither compensates strongly nor omits required info.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get Collider section headlines') and clarifies that it returns fresh headlines from one public Collider RSS section. The video-category caveat explicitly separates headline items from article content, which helps distinguish it from the sibling collider_article and collider_news tools. This is a clear, differentiated statement of purpose.

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 establishes the tool's context: it is the tool for fresh Collider section headlines, sourced from a public RSS section. It does not, however, name alternatives or give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules beyond noting that video items are not readable via the article endpoint. The usage guidance is implied by the 'headlines' framing rather than stated as a routing rule.

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