See what is trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read‑only safety is well covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it says the tool works without credentials (auth autonomy), and it tells the agent the response will include a feed link for each trending topic. It does not disclose pagination or further details about the feed link's usage, but that's a minor omission given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, front‑loaded sentence that states the core output (trending topics with feed links) and then adds a crucial caveat (works without credentials). It contains no filler, no redundancy, and every word carries meaning.

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's simplicity and the annotations that already define its safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough: it tells the agent exactly what will be returned (feed links) and the auth requirement. Minor gaps like the exact response structure or pagination are left out, but they are not critical for an agent to call this tool correctly, as the schema covers all parameters.

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 already covers all three parameters (limit, account, include_suggested) with explicit descriptions, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra details about these parameters, but it also doesn't need to — the schema is self‑sufficient. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('get') and a specific resource ('current trending topics on Bluesky'), and it adds the detail that each item includes a feed link showing the posts behind it. This distinguishes it from other read operations like get_feed or get_timeline, which are about specific feeds or timelines, whereas trends are a broader, public snapshot.

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 implies its use when the caller wants current trending topics, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does note that it works without credentials, which serves as a contextual, but it doesn't direct the agent to prefer it over other similar tools in specific situations. There's no explicit guidance on when to pick this over get_feed or search_posts.

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