get_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full topic text, but does not mention whether the output is plain text, markdown, or structured, nor any side effects (though likely read-only). It also doesn't state what happens if the id is invalid.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating the return format (e.g., markdown text) and any error behavior. The sibling list suggests a family of guide tools, but the description doesn't clarify how this relates to get_snippet.

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 the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with examples. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 states a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('texto completo de um topico do guia'), making it clear this tool retrieves the full text of a guide topic. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_snippet, but the resource type (topic vs snippet) is distinct enough.

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 description implies usage: when you need the full text of a topic. It does not explicitly state when to use this over list_topics or search_guide, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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