get_agora_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists topics with message counts, giving a basic understanding of the return content. However, it does not disclose any possible pagination, sorting, or other behavioral traits. For a 'list' operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 read tool, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. However, without an output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the structure of 'topics' (e.g., IDs, names) and whether pagination exists. Still, it is mostly complete for a simple list action.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially sufficient (schema coverage 100% or vacuous). With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly does not need to add parameter details.

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 'List' with a resource 'topics in the Agora feed' and adds 'with message counts' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_agora_thread or get_agora_by_topic. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 a full topic list is needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agora_thread or get_agora_by_topic. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the guidance is implicit.

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