tc_bcf_list_topics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states a listing operation with no details on side effects, permissions, pagination, or what the response contains. The agent cannot infer important behavioral traits like read-only nature or rate limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is concise but could be enhanced with minor details without increasing bloat.

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?

Despite the tool being simple, the description omits essential context: no output specification (no output schema), no mention of prerequisites (project must exist), and no indication of pagination or limits. The agent lacks complete information to use the tool effectively.

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 100% (both region and projectId have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('BCF topics'), and the context ('in a project'), with the parenthetical '(issues)' providing further clarification. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like tc_bcf_create_topic or tc_list_todos.

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 (e.g., tc_list_todos or search tools) or any prerequisites (e.g., valid projectId). No when-not or explicit conditions are mentioned.

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