Read Topic

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with specific fields) but omits handling of large topics, pagination defaults, or post array structure. Some transparency is provided, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 two sentences, direct, and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Read topic metadata and posts') followed by return details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic purpose and output fields but omits pagination behavior, post array details, and any context about topic_id. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation.

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 67% (post_limit and start_post_number have descriptions), but the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It does not mention how to specify a topic or pagination behavior, leaving the agent reliant on the schema alone. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate more.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('topic') and explicitly states what is returned (metadata and posts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discourse_read_post (which likely targets a single post) and discourse_filter_topics (which filters topics).

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 like discourse_read_post or discourse_search. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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