ism_list_topics

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's non-destructive nature is reinforced. The description adds behavioral details: it returns {count, topics} and respects an optional version parameter, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 with no superfluous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds contextual information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the existence of an output schema (not provided but noted), the description's mention of the return format ({count, topics}) is sufficient for a simple listing tool. It covers the single optional parameter and the behavior, making it complete enough for the given complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the version parameter controls which ISM version to query, adding semantic meaning. However, it does not fully describe the version's format or default behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it lists all distinct topic strings from the ISM, using specific verb 'List' and resource 'distinct topic strings'. It also differentiates itself from sibling by noting it provides the vocabulary for ism_list_by_topic, making its 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 explicitly indicates this tool is the source for valid topic arguments for ism_list_by_topic, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is strong enough to guide the agent effectively.

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