list_subtopics

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

The annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds useful context by restricting to 'active' subtopics and noting 'current mastery state', but it does not disclose additional behavior such as output shape, ordering, or pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every term ('Return', 'active', 'within a topic', 'current mastery state') adds signal and helps scope the operation.

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, read-only list tool, the description plus annotations and schema are mostly sufficient. The only real gap is the lack of an explicit output structure or mention of whether inactive subtopics are excluded beyond the word 'active', but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major omission.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, topic_id, including where it comes from and a caution that it is never a user id. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('active subtopics within a topic'), and the distinguishing output ('current mastery state'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_topics, get_due_subtopics, and get_subtopic_history.

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 frames when to call it: when listing active subtopics of a topic and needing current mastery state. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_due_subtopics or get_subtopic_history, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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