tag_topics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates by disclosing pagination (~30 per page), that each topic already includes category and min_trust_level, and the Markdown display convention with full titles and no emoji in plain-text headers. It omits ordering and invalid-tag behavior, but these are minor for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. It covers what the tool does, how to pass the tag, and rendering details without filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers tag value semantics, pagination, included fields, and display style. Remaining gaps such as ordering and error handling are small and unlikely to cause incorrect invocation.

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 must add meaning. It explains that tag means a tag name, with an example, and the ~30-per-page statement indirectly clarifies the page parameter's purpose. It does not explicitly describe page numbering or bounds beyond the schema's default of 1, so compensation is partial.

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 a specific action and resource: list topics under a named tag, with page size and tag-name semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as category_topics or latest_topics to differentiate them, but the 'tag' wording and tag-name example disambiguate it from category/latest-based listings.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you want topics under a particular tag name, and the description gives concrete tag-value guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like category_topics or latest_topics, so the by-tag vs by-category decision is left to inference.

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