list_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output scope (topics, counts, last message time) and filtering behavior (glob pattern, time window), implying a safe read operation. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, limits, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 short and includes the core information in two sentences, plus parameter examples. It is not highly structured but contains no fluff and is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits the limit parameter and provides no usage guidance relative to sibling tools. It does not mention whether topics without messages are included or any performance implications, leaving minor gaps.

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 compensate. It explains pattern with glob examples and seit_stunden as a time restriction, but does not mention limit at all. This is partial compensation for two of three parameters.

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: an inventory of topics with message counts and last activity. It uses a specific verb and resource ('Topic-Inventar') and implies a read-only overview, distinguishing it from siblings like get_history or get_last, though not explicitly.

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 such as get_history or status. The description only gives parameter-level examples for pattern and seit_stunden, but does not state preferred use cases, exclusions, or conditions.

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