get_topic_details

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that filter policies cause silent message dropping if attributes are missing, which is important. However, it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, describe return format, or mention any side effects.

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?

Three sentences: first describes what is returned, second explains a key behavioral detail, third gives usage context. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it returns, a critical behavioral nuance, and when to use it. Could mention if the list is summarized or detailed, but overall sufficient for context.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add param details. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately provides no extra param info since none exist.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'all SNS topics' with specific fields (subscription count, encryption status, filter policies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_queue_details or get_eventbridge_details.

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 says 'Call this before writing any SNS publish code or when reviewing event fan-out patterns,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes filter policies silently drop messages, implying caution. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from siblings makes the scope clear.

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