List recent topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and network scope are covered. The description adds only the caveat that it works where search is unavailable; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or rate limits. The auth requirement for the 'unread' source lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mode list, then the rationale. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It would be slightly stronger with a note on how paging interacts with the listings or a pointer to search_forum for filtered queries.

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 100%, so every parameter (cid, page, limit, source) is already documented, including the default and the auth note for 'unread'. The description restates the listing modes but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb (browse) and resource (topic listings) and enumerates the four listing modes that match the source enum, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It also implicitly separates itself from search tools by framing itself as the exploration path, though it never names search_forum directly.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('getting a feel for what is being reported lately') and a fallback condition ('the way to explore a forum that has no search plugin'). It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming the alternative sibling tool, so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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