ListTopics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '获取或搜索' (get or search), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, idempotent, or has side effects. It omits details like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical information—it doesn't immediately clarify what 'topics' are or the tool's scope, which slightly reduces effectiveness despite the brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or the nature of 'topics' (e.g., whether they are data events, incidents). With no annotations to cover behavioral aspects, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters with details like formats, constraints, and mutual exclusivity (e.g., InstanceId vs. NodeId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'topics' and parameters like 'TopicStatuses' or 'TopicTypes'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 '获取或搜索事件列表' (Get or search event list) is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'ListTopics' in Chinese. It doesn't specify what 'topics' or 'events' refer to (e.g., data quality events, workflow events), nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'ListAlertMessages' or 'ListWorkflowInstances', leaving the purpose unclear beyond a generic listing function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as 'ListAlertMessages' and 'ListWorkflowInstances', the description fails to indicate whether this tool is for a specific type of events (e.g., data topics, incidents) or under what conditions it should be preferred, offering no context for selection.

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