get_project_news

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only lists content types and does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, filtering/grouping behavior, rate limits, or how the parameters affect results. The term 'public' hints at scope but is insufficient for a tool with optional group and project identifiers.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely states the tool's purpose and distinct content types, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the description is minimal. For a tool with two identifiers (group and project) and overlapping siblings, more context would help disambiguate usage. The description is functional but not complete enough to fully guide an agent without additional investigation.

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 high (75%), with group, query, and project already described. The tool description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema, mainly aligning query matching with the listed content types. Since the schema covers most parameters, a 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and enumerates the exact resources returned: releases, public roadmap items, and HN discussions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_project_updates or get_signal_timeline, which focus on updates or timeline events.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like search_project_updates and get_signal_timeline, the description does not mention when this is the appropriate choice or when to prefer another tool. No exclusions or alternative references.

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