scan_news

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

Discloses key behaviors: fetches RSS, adds to news_briefs, checks specific feeds, deduplicates. However, since no annotations exist, more details (e.g., side effects, auth needs, rate limits) would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with action and scope.

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 parameters and presence of output schema, description adequately covers sources and safety. Lacks details on update frequency or behavior on empty feeds, but sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters; baseline score 4. Description does not need to explain parameters and adds no param info, which 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Fetch', resource 'RSS feeds', and action 'add new items to news_briefs'. Specifies exact sources (WHO, CDC, PLOS, Anthropic), distinguishing it from other scanning tools.

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?

Provides implicit usage context ('running multiple times is safe') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools like scan_literature or scan_pubmed_alerts.

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