List available live topics

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by using the term 'inspect,' but does not add any additional behavioral details beyond the annotations themselves. The annotations already cover the key transparency aspects.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words or details. It is well-structured and to the point.

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?

While the description indicates the general outcome (listing topics), it gives no information about the meaning of the input parameters or the expected output structure. This leaves significant gaps for a potential caller.

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 description provides no information about the four parameters (type_, args, host, port). Since the schema also lacks descriptions, the meaning of these parameters, especially the required type_, is entirely unclear.

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 function: inspecting a live data stream and listing available topics. It also distinguishes this from subscribing, which is helpful.

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 notes it is 'helpful before starting a subscription,' which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly compare or contrast with alternative tools like describe_topic or query_messages, so it could be more prescriptive.

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