syndicate_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm (confirm_count / age_in_days), the time window (7 days), and the prerequisite (2 confirms). This gives the agent good insight into the tool's behavior, though output format is not described.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool's function and providing usage guidance. No extraneous information, highly 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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, algorithm, and prerequisites adequately. It does not explain the output format, but it's a simple list of trending lessons, which is implied.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and clearly describes the single optional parameter 'limit' with default and max. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, but the schema itself is adequate.

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 it shows trending lessons based on confirmation velocity in the last 7 days. It uses a specific verb 'show' and resource 'trending lessons', and the algorithm and threshold are explicitly defined, distinguishing it from related tools like syndicate_search and syndicate_stats.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session or weekly review to see what the community is actively validating.' It also sets a prerequisite (minimum 2 confirms). However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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