rappler_sections

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 states the operation is a retrieval ('Get', 'Returns') and specifies the content (public editorial section inventory with live feed). This implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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 redundant information. It leads with the action and then specifies the output. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately brief for a tool with no parameters.

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), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact structure of the returned inventory (e.g., array of strings, objects with names and URLs), but this is likely implied by the term 'section inventory.' Overall, an agent can invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, but it also does not explicitly state that no parameters are required. However, the lack of parameters is self-evident, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves Rappler sections and specifies that it returns the editorial section inventory with live feeds. It identifies the specific publication, distinguishing it from sibling sections tools for other outlets. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'Rappler sections' are explicit and unambiguous.

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: if an agent needs Rappler sections, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it, such as 'For other publications, use their respective sections tool.' The naming convention with siblings provides implicit guidance, but the description itself lacks explicit when/when-not statements.

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