get_related_topics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that topics are derived from links and categories and that the result is limited by the 'limit' parameter, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or ordering, so the added value is moderate.

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 sentences with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple tool, the presence of output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It does not discuss edge cases (e.g., when no related topics exist) but that is not critical here. Slight lack of usage differentiation relative to siblings keeps it from a 5.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description effectively explains both parameters: 'Wikipedia article' refers to the required 'title', and 'up to the specified limit' explains the 'limit' parameter. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get topics related to a Wikipedia article based on links and categories', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links. It accurately conveys the function in two concise sentences.

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 implies usage (when you need related topics) but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as get_links or get_sections. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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