hn_top_stories

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which align with the read-only fetch. The description adds behavioral details like upstream feed length limits for 'ask' and 'job', and the return format including JSON structure.

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?

Description is well-structured: purpose sentence, feed list with context, then parameter args, then return format. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, earning its sentences.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, parameters, feed semantics, and return structure, leaving no gaps for agent 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 0% (despite schema having descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter (feed, limit, min_score) with context, including the cut-off note for 'ask' and 'job', adding value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 fetches stories from six HackerNews front-page feeds, lists each feed with a brief definition, and distinguishes from sibling tools like hn_search and hn_discussion by focusing on feed-based retrieval rather than search or discussion.

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 context for when to use each feed (e.g., 'show' for practitioner projects, 'ask' for stuck issues) and notes that 'ask' and 'job' feeds are short. It does not explicitly exclude cases, but the sibling list and feed descriptions imply appropriate use.

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