xda_headlines

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that it returns 'fresh headlines from one public XDA RSS section,' which implies a read-only, non-authenticated operation. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, number of headlines, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed for a simple read tool.

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 short sentences: 'Get XDA section headlines. Returns fresh headlines from one public XDA RSS section.' No extraneous words; the action is front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it tells the agent that it retrieves headlines for a given XDA section. It could mention the exact return format (e.g., list of titles and links), but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. It is slightly less comprehensive than the high benchmark but not lacking essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'section' parameter has a description 'XDA RSS section slug'). The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, just restates that it fetches from a section. It doesn't elaborate on how to select a section from the enum or any format details, but the schema already documents the parameter adequately, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it fetches XDA section headlines. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('XDA section headlines'), and adds that it comes from a public RSS section. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xda_article or xda_author, which handle different content types.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions or conditions for choosing it over related headline tools like xda_news or xda_sections. An agent would have to infer usage from the name.

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