appwrite_get_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the topic ID doesn't exist (error handling), or any rate limiting concerns. The word 'Get' implies reading but lacks explicit safety or behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be implementation metadata that adds no value for tool selection. While efficiently worded, it is underspecified given the complete lack of schema documentation and annotations.

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 simple getter tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for identifying the operation type. However, given zero schema coverage and no annotations, it fails to provide sufficient context for reliable invocation (particularly regarding the 'site' parameter and error conditions).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters ('site' and 'topic_id'). It only partially addresses 'topic_id' by mentioning 'by ID', while completely omitting explanation of the 'site' parameter (e.g., whether it refers to project ID, domain, or environment).

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 tool 'Get[s] topic details by ID', identifying the specific verb (Get), resource (topic details), and lookup method (by ID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'appwrite_list_topics', though the 'by ID' phrasing implicitly suggests single-item retrieval versus listing.

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 like 'appwrite_list_topics', nor does it mention prerequisites such as valid topic ID formats or site configuration requirements. There are no when/when-not instructions.

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