list_topics

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

Discloses return format (topic names), naming constraints (lowercase, digits, hyphens), and pagination (page 1-based, limit <=100). With no annotations, this provides adequate behavioral context, though missing authentication details or error responses.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, result format, constraints, and pagination. Nearly complete for a simple list tool with no output schema; could include an example or error handling note.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minor context (page 1-based, limit max 100) but mostly restates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it lists a repository's topics (tags) and returns the topic name list. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like add_topic, remove_topic, replace_topics by focusing on inspection.

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 suggests use before editing topics ('useful to inspect classification before editing'), implying primary use case. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but given sibling tools, the read-only nature is clear.

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