Metis · News Radar — Add User Topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it adds a topic but does not mention whether duplicates are allowed (despite hinting at 'unique' in param doc), what side effects occur (e.g., triggers notifications), or what happens if the topic already exists. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it uses Python docstring style with 'Args:' which is unnecessary for JSON. It is concise but could be more efficiently structured without the docstring formatting, potentially adding a return description or behavior note.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and low complexity (2 params, no enums), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions (e.g., duplicate topic), or the lifecycle of added topics. The tool's purpose is clear but operational details are missing for a complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. It only repeats parameter names with minimal context ('topic: Topic name (unique)', 'description: Optional description...'). The schema already contains required/default info; the description does not explain formats, constraints, or usage examples, adding little beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Add a topic to track for new publications.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('topic'), and distinguishes from similar sibling tools like add_glossary_term or add_memory_entry by specifying the context of tracking new publications.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search or list tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, usage context, or when not to use it. The description is purely operational without contextual decision support.

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