tomshardware_news

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 mentions 'fresh' and 'public RSS feed', which implies a read-only, live data source, but it does not disclose any limitations (e.g., number of stories, pagination, rate limits, or whether the response is a list vs. a single item). For a read tool, this is a minimal but not comprehensive 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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the action and the data source. Every element earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core action but omits any detail about the return format (e.g., fields like title, link, date). Since there is no output schema, an agent might need more information about what 'top stories' entails. It is adequate for a simple fetch but not exhaustive.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per guidelines, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none exist, and none are needed. This score reflects that the absence of parameters is fully handled.

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 ('Tom's Hardware top stories'), and the source ('public RSS feed'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tomshardware_article or tomshardware_author, but does not explicitly contrast with tomshardware_headlines, which could be a close alternative. Still, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tomshardware_headlines or tomshardware_sections. The description only conveys the basic action, leaving the agent to infer that 'top stories' is distinct from 'headlines' without further help. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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