list_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists only 'active' topics and mentions the transport mechanism, which implies a read-only query. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, latency, or that it requires an active Rosbridge connection. For a simple listing operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 no-parameter, list-type tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the output (active topics and their message types) and the method. The existence of an output schema covers return value structure, so additional details are not necessary. Minor gaps include lack of pagination or error behavior, but these are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description is consistent with the empty schema, and no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 verb (List), the resource (active ROS topics), and adds specificity with 'message types' and 'via pure Rosbridge WebSocket API'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nodes (nodes) and echo_topic (single topic data stream).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The phrase 'via pure Rosbridge WebSocket API' hints at a lightweight approach but does not serve as clear usage direction.

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