collider_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. It discloses a key behavioral fact: the data comes from a public RSS feed and is 'fresh' (recent). However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or the number of stories, which would further aid the agent. For a zero-parameter read operation, this is minimal but acceptable.

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 two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence adds the source detail (public RSS feed) without redundancy beyond the repeated 'top stories'. Every word earns its place in this efficient definition.

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, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and from where. However, it could briefly specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of article titles and URLs) to fully set expectations, which is a minor gap.

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 schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the baseline rule, 0 parameters warrants a 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to explain, which 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Collider top stories'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate among similar sibling tools like collider_headlines or collider_sections, so it lacks sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 such as collider_headlines or collider_article. It simply states what it does without conditions, exclusions, or references to more suitable tools. This meets the 'no guidance' level.

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