get_topic_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about heat scores and sentiment, implying a read-only operation via the verb 'get', but it does not discuss pagination, default limits, or the fact that the status filter supports additional states like 'emerging' or 'archived'.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 moderate complexity (three optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (heat scores, sentiment). The schema fills in parameter details. A minor gap is that the description implies only trending/active while the schema allows other statuses, but this is not a major omission.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (limit, status, sort_by) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get trending and active topic clusters from Resonate', which clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (topic clusters) with a specific source. The second sentence elaborates on what the clusters represent, distinguishing this from sibling tools that handle posts, streams, or thoughts.

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 helpful context by specifying 'trending and active' topics, indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, lacking exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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