get_hackernews_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions support for different story types and relies on the input schema for parameter details. It does not discuss rate limits, response format, or side effects, offering minimal transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentences long, front-loading the core function and usage context. Every word serves a purpose—no fluff. Excellent conciseness for an MCP tool.

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?

The tool has 3 well-documented parameters but no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, pagination, or ordering. For a simple list retrieval, this is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for complex use cases.

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% with detailed explanations for each parameter (e.g., enum values for story_type, range for limit, boolean for use_cache). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 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 retrieves Hacker News stories for tech news, startup discussions, and programming articles. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools due to the explicit Hacker News focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar news 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?

The description suggests using the tool for tech news, startups, and programming articles, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to sibling tools like get_devto_articles or get_lobsters_hottest, leaving room for ambiguity.

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