get_trending_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a config file (config/frequency_words.txt) and is not auto-extracting, which adds transparency. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, the tool appears to be read-only and non-destructive, making this level of disclosure adequate.

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 reasonably concise, with the main behavior explained in one sentence followed by parameter details. However, it includes a note about not being auto-extraction that could be integrated more tightly. Still, it is clear and well-structured.

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 only has two optional parameters and an output schema (implies return structure is documented), the description covers the source of words, the two modes, and the return format. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage (no field descriptions), but the tool description fully explains both parameters: top_n returns top N words (default 10) and mode has daily (cumulative day) and current (latest batch) options. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 retrieves frequency statistics for user-defined personal focus words from a configuration file, distinguishing it from automatic hot topic extraction. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '关注词的新闻出现频率统计' (news appearance frequency statistics of focus words) are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly clarifies that this tool is not for automatic hot topic extraction but for custom word frequency statistics, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternative sibling tools like analyze_topic_trend or search_news, which could be used for related but different purposes.

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