What's New on GateOnAI

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are driven by genuine addition timestamps rather than a static list or popularity guess, which explains the non-idempotent time-window behavior. It does not, however, discuss ordering, result caps, or the effect of the days window 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the optional filter and use-case framing. The 'not a guess or a static list' clause is mildly promotional but does real differentiating work against trend-based siblings.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the tool's scope, the optional filter, and the time-window model adequately. The only gap is routing guidance among the many sibling tools, which is not strictly required for correct invocation.

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% – both days (1-30, default 7) and category are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the category filter with concrete examples ('ai-agents', 'marketing', 'design') and gives a time framing ('this week'), but adds no syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('See real AI tools recently added to GateOnAI') and draws a sharp distinction from a time-based sibling like get_trending_tools by emphasizing genuine addition timestamps rather than popularity. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for loosely related needs.

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 offers implied usage contexts ('staying current on new tool launches', 'checking what's new in a specific space') and mentions the optional category filter, but never states when NOT to use it or which of the many siblings (get_trending_tools, search_ai_tools) is the better choice in a given situation.

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