crbro_hot_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the heat-score basis, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output format, or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the system must be booted). This is an average level of transparency for a simple query 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 (one optional param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It explains the core purpose and scoring logic. It could be improved by mentioning that the result is a list of neurons and noting any preconditions, but it is adequate for straightforward use.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (limit) with a clear description and default value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline 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 a specific action ('Get the hottest topics') and resource (neurons with highest heat scores), and explains the scoring criteria (frequency, recency, connectivity). This differentiates it from siblings like crbro_neurons (likely all neurons) and crbro_neuron (single neuron).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need trending or popular topics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5. The phrase 'hottest topics' provides sufficient context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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