mirror_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that headlines are 'fresh' but does not describe the return format, any pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to handle the response or anticipate limitations.

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 no unnecessary words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about 'public Mirror section' is concise. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what the response looks like. Saying 'returns fresh headlines' is vague; it does not specify whether the output is a list, includes dates or links, or any other structure. For a minimal tool it is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage: the parameter 'section' is described as 'Mirror section slug' with an extensive enum. The description adds only that the section must be 'public,' which is a minor clarification. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Mirror section headlines,' and specifies that it returns fresh headlines from one public Mirror section. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mirror_article (single article) and mirror_sections (list sections) without ambiguity.

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 'from one public Mirror section,' which indicates that a section is required, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mirror_news or mirror_sections. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternative selection, so the usage context is only implied.

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