topvisor_list_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the tool 'Supports filtering, ordering, pagination,' which hints at functionality but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. Critical behavioral traits are omitted.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences front-load the core purpose ('List keywords for a project') and then mention key features. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the required project_id parameter, the return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. The agent lacks essential context to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has low description coverage (25%), and the description only generically mentions 'filtering, ordering, pagination' without detailing how parameters like filters, orders, limit, or offset work. It does not explain the meaning of specific parameters, their usage constraints, or default behavior, leaving the agent to guess from the schema structure alone.

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's action ('List keywords for a project') with a specific verb and resource. It mentions additional capabilities (filtering, ordering, pagination) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like topvisor_list_projects or topvisor_list_regions, which may have similar features. Hence, not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as topvisor_list_projects or topvisor_get_summary. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and capability hints.

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