get_stories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that only metadata is returned (no comments), defines count limits, and implies a read-only operation through 'Browse' and 'Returns.' It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but for this simple HN read tool, the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 extremely efficient: two purpose/behavior sentences plus a clean, well-formatted argument list. Every sentence carries meaningful information and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple browse tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, return type, parameter semantics, and constraints. No critical context is missing for selection or 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains count as 'Number of stories to return' with default and max values, and enumerates category options in plain language. The schema provides enum/default but no descriptions; the description compensates well, though it could slightly expand on what each category signifies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse HN stories by category.' It further clarifies scope with 'Returns metadata only (no comments),' which distinguishes it from comment- and thread-focused sibling tools. This is clear and non-tautological.

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 clearly frames the tool as a category-based story browser and notes it returns metadata only, implying it is not for comment retrieval or searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to search_stories or get_thread.

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