servicebus_list_topics

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

With no annotations, the description provides valuable behavioral details: returns a sorted JSON array or map with subscriptions, and explains namespace handling (short name vs. FQDN, auto-appending suffix). This goes beyond the bare minimum.

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?

Concise and well-structured: the main action is front-loaded, followed by return format details and a parameter note. No wasted words. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description covers both parameters adequately and explains return behavior. The agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: namespace format (short name or FQDN) and include_subscriptions effect (returns mapping of topic to subscriptions). This compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'List all topics in an Azure Service Bus namespace.' The verb 'list' and resource 'topics' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like servicebus_list_queues and servicebus_list_namespaces.

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?

Implies what the tool does, but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus siblings like servicebus_list_queues or servicebus_list_namespaces. The description focuses on functionality rather than usage context.

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