ign_headlines

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the feed is 'public' and headlines are 'fresh', hinting at no auth and recency, but does not disclose potential behavior like error handling for invalid sections, pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of returned data. This is minimal disclosure for a read tool.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds context about the feed. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core function but lacks details on the return format (e.g., list of headline objects with fields like title, link) and any limits or pagination. Since there is no output schema, an agent might need more guidance on what to expect. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is not a critical 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 schema already describes the single parameter as 'IGN section slug' with an enum of valid values, providing full coverage (100%). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or clarification of what each section represents. Baseline of 3 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 tool fetches IGN section headlines and returns fresh headlines from a public feed. It specifies the resource (section headlines) and the verb (Get), which is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ign_news or ign_sections, leaving some ambiguity about when this is preferred over those.

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 conditions, exclusions, or alternatives such as ign_news for news-only headlines or ign_sections for section listing. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context, which is insufficient.

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