list_topics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination (page 1-based, limit <=100) and topic name format constraints. Does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'list' and 'inspect' imply no destructive behavior. Minor omission of authentication requirements.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by format constraints and pagination details. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

No output schema, but description hints at return value ('topic name list'). Pagination details are sufficient. Could specify the exact structure (e.g., array of strings or object with pagination metadata), but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining pagination behavior and topic name format (lowercase, letters, digits, hyphens), which are not in parameter descriptions.

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?

Clear verb-resource combination: 'List a repository's topics (tags)'. Explicitly states the output and differentiates from sibling topic editing tools like replace_topics, add_topic, remove_topic by noting it is for inspection before editing.

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 states usefulness for inspection before editing, implying when to use. Sibling differentiation is present via the 'before editing' context. Could explicitly mention not to use for modification, but 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.