lt_dp_list_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool lists 'all covered' topics, indicating exhaustive coverage, and explicitly mentions the bilingual output. For a simple, parameter-free read-only list, this is adequate, even though it omits details like pagination or ordering.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds practical usage context. Every word earns 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?

The output schema is absent, so the description must specify return values. It states the list includes topics with Lithuanian and English names, but it does not explicitly confirm that topic IDs are included in the returned list. Since the description instructs using topic IDs to filter decisions/guidelines, it is ambiguous whether the IDs come from this tool, leaving a notable gap.

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 the schema is fully covered by default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; baseline 4 applies as per the rubric for 0-parameter tools.

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's purpose: to list all covered data protection topics, and it specifies that each topic includes Lithuanian and English names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or retrieve decisions/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 contextual guidance by noting that topic IDs can be used to filter decisions and guidelines, implying this tool is the source for such IDs. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the connection to sibling tools is clear.

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