browse_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses return structure and notes topics sit on top of pillars, but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Examples are concise and helpful.

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 browse tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is returned and its relationship to pillars. Minor gap: no mention of default behavior when query is empty.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about cross-cutting topics but does not enhance meaning of the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's description.

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 specifies a verb ('browse') and resource ('registry by cross-cutting topic'), provides concrete examples, and explains return values (node, pillar, jurisdiction counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on nodes or jurisdictions directly.

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 implies use when exploring topics across pillars, but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like 'search_nodes' or 'consult_node'.

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