Milli.gold latest posts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description focuses on tool-specific traits. It adds per-section availability limits, the absence of search or older pages, Persian-language news content, returned fields, and the handoff to mg_read.

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 action and scope, then adds constraints and the mg_read handoff. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return fields (date, categories, summary, URL), availability constraints, section context, and the alternative for full-post reading. Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, an agent has enough information to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit and section semantics. The description adds useful context beyond the schema by noting approximate per-section counts ('about 20 news, 10 mag, 10 help') and the nature of the news content, which helps an agent choose section and limit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the newest posts' on Milli.gold's news, magazine, or help site. It also explicitly routes full-post reading to the sibling tool mg_read, so an agent can distinguish listing from reading.

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?

It clearly states the main usage constraint ('Only the newest posts are available... there is no search or older pages') and names mg_read as the alternative for reading a full post. The only gap is that it does not explicitly clarify how the 'help' section relates to the sibling mg_help_topics tool.

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