alcove_knowledge_topics

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what 'known' means (e.g., cached vs. fresh), or how the optional workspace parameter affects results. The description is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits context such as the meaning of 'OKF', the scope of 'known', and the effect of the workspace parameter. For a simple list tool, this is minimally acceptable but could be more informative.

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 input schema has one parameter 'workspace' with a default value but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how or why to use it. This is a significant gap.

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 action ('List') and the resources ('known OKF topics, tags, and domains'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like alcove_get_topic (which retrieves a single topic) and alcove_knowledge_add_* (which adds entities). However, 'OKF' is an abbreviation that may not be universally understood, slightly reducing clarity.

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. For example, it does not mention that for individual topic details one should use alcove_get_topic, or that this tool is for overview purposes. The context of sibling tools suggests it is a listing function, but no direct comparison is made.

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