wired_news

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 is a read operation ('Get'), that the feed is public, and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention that it requires no authentication, has no parameters, or note any rate limits or potential variations (e.g., caching). The description implies a safe, read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state the absence of side effects or permissions. That's a moderate gap given zero annotation coverage.

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 exactly two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second details the feed source and returned fields. It's front-loaded with the key purpose and avoids redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers everything an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect. It names the feed source, lists the specific fields, and clarifies it's the public top stories. There are no missing details that would hinder correct usage.

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, and the schema is an empty object. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, which is consistent with the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there are none to describe) but doesn't confuse the agent.

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 'latest WIRED stories', and explicitly defines the output as the public top-stories RSS feed with a list of fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wired_headlines or wired_sections by specifying this is the top-stories feed, making its purpose 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 clearly indicates this tool is for fetching the latest top stories from WIRED, which is a distinct use case among the many news-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'top-stories RSS feed' implies it's for a general overview rather than specific articles, authors, or sections. Slight room for explicit exclusions, hence 4.

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