List existing topics/tags

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the default filter (only live topics), the existence of orphaned 0-count topics and why they persist, that the operation is not rate-limited, and that it requires an active subscription. The subscription prerequisite and default-hiding behavior are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then usage guidance, then defaults and constraints — good ordering with no filler. The single dense run-on covering defaults plus orphan explanation is slightly heavy but every clause carries information.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, defaults, and downstream usage. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the *reason* include_empty exists (topics aren't deleted when their memories are) and reinforcing most-used-ordering for limit. It adds rationale rather than new mechanical detail, so not quite a 5.

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 the topics (tags) already in use, most-used first') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling tools it interacts with (amber_store_memory, amber_search_memories). An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('before amber_store_memory when you're unsure whether a topic already exists') and what to do with the result ('REUSE an existing name instead of minting a near-duplicate'), including a concrete example. It also names the downstream consumer of consistency (the `topics` filter in amber_search_memories), which is genuine when/when-not routing.

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