tx_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '实时数据' (real-time data), implying freshness and possibly frequent updates, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data format, or whether it's read-only or mutative. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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 extremely concise—just a short phrase—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the data source and type, with no wasted text. This is ideal for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, which are needed for the agent to understand how to invoke it effectively. While concise, it doesn't provide enough completeness for reliable tool use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 the tool provides '实时数据/腾讯新闻热榜' (real-time data/Tencent News hot list), which indicates it fetches trending news from Tencent. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact operation (e.g., whether it lists, searches, or streams news) and doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'weibo_news' or 'toutiao_news' beyond the source. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., use for Tencent-specific news vs. other platforms). This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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