data_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that the tool likely performs a read operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or performance considerations. The optional pixel capture could be expensive, but that is not mentioned.

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 line plus parameter list. It is not overly verbose, but the initial line could be more informative. The parameter list is structured and easy to read. It is concise but lacks completeness.

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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'resolution' means in output, how the pixel capture works, or what the return format is. It fails to address potential edge cases (e.g., invalid path, what happens if pixels is false).

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 lists each parameter with a brief comment (e.g., 'TOP operator path', 'Capture pixels as base64 PNG', 'Downscale if wider'). This adds some meaning beyond the schema, although the schema doesn't provide descriptions. However, the parameter names and comments are fairly self-evident, so the added value is moderate. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does.

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 'TOP resolution, optionally base64 PNG pixel capture' is somewhat vague: it doesn't clearly state that it retrieves the resolution of a TOP and optionally captures pixel data. It could be interpreted as a resolution operation or something else. There is no distinction from siblings like data_sop or data_dat.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as data_sop or data_pixel_sample. No context is provided about typical use cases or limitations. The description gives no hints about when to prefer this tool over others.

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