vice_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it returns stories from an RSS feed, without mentioning whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the basic function.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to scan. However, it could have added a bit more context about the output without becoming verbose, so it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what the response looks like (e.g., a list of stories with titles, links, dates). It only says 'returns fresh VICE stories' without specifying structure or count. For a simple feed tool, this is a noticeable gap, but not critical since the agent can infer the format from the source.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty, and the description correctly omits any parameter details. With no parameters to document, this is a non-issue; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from it.

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 VICE top stories from a public RSS feed. It names the resource (VICE stories) and the action (get), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vice_headlines, which could be similar. The mention of 'top stories' and 'fresh' adds some distinction, but it's not explicit about when to use this over other VICE tools.

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 alternatives like vice_article, vice_headlines, or vice_sections. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative scenarios. An agent would have to infer from the name and description that this is the general news feed, but the description provides no explicit decision criteria.

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