ee_dp_list_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'list' and describes the output (Estonian and English names). It doesn't disclose output format or pagination, but for a zero-parameter listing tool, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a practical usage tip. No redundant information or fluff.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the language variant, and the practical use case. Given the low complexity and lack of output schema, no additional detail is necessary.

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 zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by relating the output to topic IDs for use in other tools, which helps the agent understand the purpose of the returned data.

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 tool lists all covered data protection topics with Estonian and English names, using a specific verb ('list') and resource. The mention of topic IDs for filtering decisions and guidelines distinguishes it from sibling search/get tools for decisions and guidelines.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: to obtain topic IDs for filtering decisions and guidelines. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear and useful for selecting this tool over siblings.

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