List Agora Topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repetition semantics are fully covered. The description contributes one extra behavioral fact — that results include message counts — but says nothing about ordering, empty-feed behavior, or pagination. Adequate, 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?

A single sentence with the resource and the distinguishing return detail front-loaded. There is no filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title.

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-argument, read-only listing tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the description supplies the essential shape of the response (topics plus counts). With no output schema, a brief note on ordering or pagination would complete it, but the missing pieces are minor.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misdescribes the empty input schema, which confirms no arguments are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all topics in the Agora feed") plus the payload detail ("with message counts"). The word "all" implicitly contrasts with the filtering sibling get_agora_by_topic, but the differentiation is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agora_by_topic (per-topic drill-down) or get_agora_thread, which are close siblings in the Agora family. Usage is only vaguely implied by "all topics" as a discovery call.

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