Filter Topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with results and meta), including pagination fields (page, limit, has_more), and explains the query syntax thoroughly. It does not explicitly state side effects or permissions, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'filter' and the output description.

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 appropriately sized. The opening sentence states the core purpose, the second sentence covers the return format, and the remainder compactly lists query syntax options. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the structure is easy to scan despite its length.

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?

The tool has a complex query language and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the exact return shape (results array with id, slug, title; meta with page, limit, has_more) and covering the major query facets: category, tag, status, in, date, and order. This makes the behavior of the tool understandable without additional schema information.

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%, but the description goes far beyond by detailing the entire query language syntax, including operators for categories, tags, status, in-options, date filters, and ordering. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's simple example and parameter descriptions.

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 filters topics using a concise query language, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like discourse_search by describing the specific filtering capabilities and output format. The verb 'filter' and resource 'topics' are explicitly named, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to filter topics by categories, tags, status, date, or ordering—and provides a detailed query syntax. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like discourse_search or state when not to use it, so clear context is provided but exclusions are absent.

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