wired_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns a 'current public RSS feed' (implying read-only, no auth) and enumerates the returned story fields. It does not mention error behavior, ordering, pagination, or freshness limits, which are relevant for a feed tool, but the basics are covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return fields are compactly listed, and the valid input constraint is stated at the end. Every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the source (RSS feed), the exact allowed values, and what fields will be returned. Minor gaps such as ordering or pagination are not critical for a simple feed fetch. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'section' parameter with its enum and source. The description adds the explicit enum values and reinforces the dependency on /wired/sections, but this is mostly repetition of schema information. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest stories in a WIRED section.' It further clarifies the return payload (title, URL, summary, author, time, lead image) and scope (one section via RSS feed). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like wired_news or wired_sections, but the 'headlines' name plus section-scoped behavior makes its purpose clear.

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 provides a clear prerequisite by stating the section 'must be one of the slugs returned by /wired/sections' and lists the valid slugs. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g., when to use wired_news or wired_article instead), leaving the agent to infer the intended use case 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.