read_topic

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: truncated posts use read_post, and output is Markdown when available else plain text from API HTML. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination termination, but the added context is solid.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, leading with the core action and then pagination and truncation details. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still explains the output format. Combined with offset/max_chars semantics and the read_post handoff, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though limit remains unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It defines offset ('0-based index in the visible post stream') and max_chars ('limits each post'), but limit and topic_id are left entirely to the schema titles, leaving half the parameters semantically thin.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a topic and replies') and distinguishes itself from the sibling read_post by pointing to it for truncated remainder. It could be sharper about what a 'topic' means in this domain, but the scope is clear.

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?

Explains when to use read_post (for the remainder of truncated posts) and clarifies pagination via offset, giving clear context. No explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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