cc98_new_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, supports pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a network fetch.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the purpose. However, it contains no structure (e.g., sections, examples) and is too minimal to be considered 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, two parameters with 0% coverage, and the tool's complexity (fetching topics with pagination), the description fails to explain return format, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It is highly incomplete.

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 0%, meaning the input schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention the parameters ('from' and 'size') or their semantics (e.g., pagination offset and limit), leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the schema field names.

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 retrieves the latest posted topics site-wide ('获取全站最新发布的主题帖'). It uses a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('最新发布的主题帖' - latest posted topics), distinguishing it from siblings like cc98_hot_topics (hot topics) and cc98_search_topics (search).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, such as noting that this tool is for unfiltered site-wide latest topics while cc98_get_board_topics filters by board.

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