list_brand_topics

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/behavior burden; 'List ... available' clearly signals a read-only enumeration and scopes the result to available topics. It could additionally note that no mutation occurs or how topics are ordered, but the read-only intent is unambiguous.

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 verb and object front-loaded and examples in a controlled parenthetical. Every word adds context; nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless list operation, the description is complete: it names the operation, the data domain, and example topic categories. No output schema or parameters require additional documentation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning and the baseline is high. The enumeration examples still provide useful context about the kinds of return values to expect.

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 ('List'), a concrete resource ('Medovia / ApoSuite brand topics'), and gives illustrative examples (colors, typography, buttons). The plural scope and topic focus distinguish it from singular/brand-search/color siblings such as get_brand_topic and get_color.

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 use case is implied by 'List the available ... brand topics'—an agent can infer it is for enumerating topics rather than fetching a single one. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_brand_topic, search_brand, or get_color, and no stated exclusions.

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