lobsters_hot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds background about the community but no new behavioral traits (like rate limits or caching). There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two sentences of context, and then a clear parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool does, its parameters, and the structure of its return value (including fields like title, url, score, etc.). Since an output schema exists, the return value details are sufficient. No gaps remain for this simple read-only tool.

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?

Both parameters (limit and tag_filter) have descriptions in the input schema. The description repeats these details without adding new meaning. With high schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool fetches 'the hottest stories from Lobste.rs', a specific resource. It also provides context that Lobste.rs is smaller and more technically focused than HackerNews, which helps distinguish it from related tools like hn_top_stories.

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 context by comparing Lobste.rs to HackerNews ('smaller and more technically focused'), implying when this tool might be preferred. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives directly.

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