builder_activity

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 openly describes the data sources, optional GITHUB_TOKEN requirement, rate-limit implications, and return structure including that GitHub results are the top 10 by stars. It does not mention edge cases or failure modes, but it is substantially transparent for a read-style search tool.

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-structured with a clear purpose statement, setup note, alternative routing, and an Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the return format is compactly documented. It earns its length.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the query semantics, the result shape, per-item fields, the GitHub top-10 behavior, rate limits, and an important alternative for Product Hunt. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the single query parameter. It does so clearly: 'search terms, e.g. a product category ("habit tracker") or problem.' This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema's type and required flag.

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 identifies the tool's function: combining Hacker News stories and GitHub repositories into a 'builder signal'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with 'search interest or community chatter' and mentions specific sources, making it easy for an agent to disambiguate from tools like related_topics or interest_over_time.

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 gives useful context for when to use the tool: when there is interest in real building/shipping activity rather than search interest or chatter. It also provides an explicit exclusion and alternative for Product Hunt launches, directing users to web search instead. It does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use it versus every sibling, but the guidance is clear.

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