ism_list_by_topic

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

Discloses return shape `{topic, count, identifiers}` with only IDs, and default behavior for unknown topic (empty list, not error). No contradiction with readOnlyHint annotation; adds value beyond it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 2 parameters and output schema exists, description fully covers behavior: return shape and error handling. Complete for intended use.

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 0% means description must compensate. It explains 'topic' is exact match and references ism_list_topics for enumeration, adding semantic value. Version parameter is not mentioned, so partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'controls under a specific topic', and scope 'exact match'. Distinguishes from sibling ism_list_topics by specifying enumeration.

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?

Provides clear context: when to use (list by topic), alternative (ism_list_topics for enumeration), and follow-up (ism_get for full records). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but sufficient.

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