alertops_list_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration and does not suggest any mutation or side effects. The purpose clause adds useful context about what topics are without overclaiming. A minor gap is the lack of comment on pagination or result size, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is not a significant deficiency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all message topics') and appends the purpose in a relative clause. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition, filler, or ambiguity.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, where they are configured, and their purpose. It does not specify exact fields returned (e.g., topic ID, name, routing rules), but given the simplicity of the tool and absence of an output schema, the agent can successfully invoke it and interpret the result at a basic level. A slightly richer note on return values would push it to 5.

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 is empty (0 parameters), and the rules specify a baseline of 4 in that case. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists, which is appropriate. There is no need for the description to compensate for undocumented 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List all message topics configured in the AlertOps account') and clearly identifies the resource as topics, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like alertops_list_alerts, alertops_list_users, and alertops_list_integrations. The additional purpose clause ('used to route inbound alerts to the right escalation/priority handling') further clarifies the tool's role.

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 clear context: this tool is used to see the message topics that govern inbound alert routing. It implies when this tool is relevant (when working with alert routing configuration), but it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or name alternative tools for exclusion. This misses the 5 threshold but is stronger than a vague implication.

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