topic_cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It tells that the tool generates ideas with ICP, search intent, and guidance, and mentions 'configurable set' (related to topicCount). However, it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or consequences of parameters like topicCount 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the output nature. For a tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no nested objects, the description covers the core behavior. It could be more explicit about return format, but it is adequate.

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%, and the description adds value by introducing 'ICP, search intent, and guidance' which are not in the schema, enriching the meaning of the output. The description also hints at configurability via topicCount.

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 uses a specific verb ('Expand') and resource ('one seed topic'), clearly stating the output is 'a configurable set of programmatic SEO article ideas with ICP, search intent, and guidance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_markdown or get_article, which are not about expansion.

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 implies usage when generating article ideas from a seed topic, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention when not to use it.

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