mashable_news

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

The description discloses the data source (public all-stories RSS feed), freshness guarantee, and excludes specific content types. However, since annotations are absent, the description must carry the full burden; it does not describe response structure, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. This is partial but non-trivial disclosure.

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 sentences, with the primary action front-loaded ('Get Mashable top stories') followed by concise context about source and exclusions. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, source, freshness, and exclusions. It does not specify return structure or limits, but these are minor given the simplicity and lack of output schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is empty, so there is no parameter information to enhance. Per the rubric baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because none exist, and it adds no unnecessary details.

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 gets Mashable top stories and specifies the source as the public all-stories RSS feed. It also lists content types excluded (sponsored posts, shopping roundups, reviews, video pages), which helps set it apart from other Mashable tools like article/author/headlines. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other Mashable tools (e.g., mashable_headlines, mashable_article). The description only states what it does and never mentions conditions for selecting it or alternatives. The agent must infer its usage from the name and context.

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