gamerant_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that headlines are 'fresh', sourced from RSS, and that video items have type 'video' and are not accessible via the article endpoint. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'get headlines' statement, though it omits details like pagination or response format.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about video items is a necessary addition. Every word 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (headlines), the source (RSS section), and a limitation (video items not readable via article endpoint). It does not mention response shape or pagination, but these are minor for a simple headlines 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 describes the parameter as 'Game Rant RSS section slug' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that it's a section slug but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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'), the resource ('Game Rant section headlines'), and the scope ('from one public Game Rant RSS section'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gamerant_article (full articles) and gamerant_sections (section listing) by focusing specifically on headlines.

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 implies usage by stating what it returns, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. It hints that video items are not readable through the article endpoint, which is a partial exclusion, but it does not reference sibling tools like gamerant_article for full text or gamerant_sections for listing sections.

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