get_whats_new

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: the tool is stateful, tracking content since the last fetch, and defaults to that checkpoint. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, ordering, or how 'live' updates behave.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the default behavior. No filler, though the 'Live:' prefix is slightly cryptic rather than informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the stateful 'since last fetch' behavior is conveyed. Still, the unexplained `competition` parameter and absence of any safety or usage context leave meaningful gaps for a 2-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies `since` (ISO date, defaults to last fetch) but says nothing at all about the `competition` parameter, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 names a resource (topics created or commented on) and a temporal scope (since `since`), which conveys the general intent. However, 'topics' is vague given siblings like list_discussions, get_discussion, and get_section, and the definition never clarifies what a 'topic' is relative to those. It is understandable but not sharply differentiated from its siblings.

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?

There is no indication of when to prefer this tool over list_discussions or search_discussions, nor any exclusion criteria. The only usage-adjacent signal is 'Defaults to the last fetch,' which describes default behavior rather than selection guidance.

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