list_dua_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds context by stating the listing is 'all available' and that the slugs are intended for get_dua_by_topic. However, it does not disclose potential concerns such as pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The description does not mislead but lacks depth for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It immediately states the resource and its purpose, with no extraneous words or repetition of schema 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value: available topic slugs for use with get_dua_by_topic. It also implies the output type (slugs). It could state whether the list is sorted, but 'all available' covers exhaustiveness, making this sufficiently complete for a simple listing tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema already reflects this (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exist, so the baseline score of 3 applies; no further information is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all available du'a topic slugs') and explicitly states the downstream use with get_dua_by_topic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dua or get_dua_by_topic, which have different purposes.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to know valid topic slugs for get_dua_by_topic. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is unambiguous given the phrase 'can be used with get_dua_by_topic'.

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