get_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation through 'Retrieve' and the explicit 'GET' method, which is a strong transparency indicator. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but for a simple fetch these are minor gaps.

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 sentence with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical endpoint is a compact, useful addition. Every element earned its place.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the action, the resource, and the endpoint. It does not describe the response shape or error handling, but 'retrieve' sufficiently implies a single-object response. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 schema already describes the only parameter ('id' as a string), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add new semantic detail about the id format or behavior, which is acceptable but not value-adding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a topic by id') and the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_topics, create_topic, update_topic, and delete_topic. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous, and the HTTP path adds precision.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is for fetching a single topic when an id is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus list_topics or other alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated, so it earns a midpoint score.

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