topic_map

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 mentions the tool generates a topic map and clusters memories, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the output looks like beyond the format hint. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides specific parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's job is reduced. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter coverage, it lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). It adequately covers purpose and one parameter, but for a tool that likely involves data processing, more disclosure would be helpful.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining the 'output_format' parameter: 'Use format='mermaid' for a visual Mermaid mindmap diagram.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that 'mermaid' is a valid value for visual output, though it doesn't detail other possible formats or defaults.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a topic map showing how your knowledge is organized. Clusters memories by shared keywords and shows topic distribution.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('topic map'), and what it does (clusters memories by keywords, shows distribution). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'knowledge_graph' or 'explore_connections', which might have overlapping functions.

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 provides some implied usage guidance: 'Use format='mermaid' for a visual Mermaid mindmap diagram.' This suggests when to use a specific parameter value for visual output. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'knowledge_graph' or 'explore_connections'), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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