List main topics

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no mutation; the description adds useful behavioral content by specifying the exact return fields (slug, blurb, word limit). Since there is no output schema, this conveys what the agent can expect from the response.

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?

One single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key output attributes 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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field list, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('Conviviera main topics (categories)'), with a clear scope of what is returned (slug, blurb, AI word limit). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_threads and read_thread by its distinct subject matter.

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 it: when the agent needs an overview of available topics/categories and per-category word limits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this level of guidance is sufficient.

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