get_topic_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or resource implications. Adequate but not explicit.

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 very concise, with two paragraphs: one for purpose and args, one for returns. Every sentence is necessary and no wasted words. Well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections.

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 tool with one input parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies input, output summary (message type, publisher/subscriber counts), and context. All relevant aspects are covered succinctly.

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 coverage is 100% with the description of 'topic_name' as 'Name of the ROS2 topic'. The description repeats this and adds examples (e.g., '/tf', '/map'), which adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific ROS2 topic', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_ros2_topics' (lists topics) and 'echo_topic_messages' (echoes messages) by focusing on detailed metadata of a single topic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for getting topic metadata, but does not state exclusions or contrast with similar tools such as 'get_topic_frequency' or 'list_ros2_topics'.

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