Metis · News Radar — Update Today Board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that previously tool-filled rows are replaced while user-curated or hand-added items are preserved. It also mentions the absence of an RSS source and that the tool is designed for Claude Desktop on the user's subscription (no API rate limit), providing key operational context.

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 well-organized with clear sections, including a purpose statement, usage context, behavioral note, and structured parameter definitions. It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence serving a purpose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'on the user's subscription, no API rate limit' could be integrated more smoothly), but overall it is efficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, return format, and behavioral traits. It explains the niche use case (boards without RSS, desktop-only update method) and the replacement logic. The return value is described concisely, though it could be slightly more detailed about failure modes. Nonetheless, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by defining the 'board' parameter as either 'events' or 'funding', and detailing the 'items' parameter as a list of objects with specified fields (title, url, optional date, optional description). It also includes usage guidance like 'Only include real items with a working http(s) URL', adding crucial semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool fills a Today-surface board (Events or Funding) with web-found items, precisely defining each board's content (congresses/conferences vs. funding calls). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the unique use case (boards without RSS sources) and the replacement behavior (preserving manual entries).

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 advises using this tool after web-searching for the researcher's field and explains that it is invoked via the dashboard's 'Update with Claude' buttons. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or enumerate alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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