get_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get details.' It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe the response shape, or mention any limitations. 'Details' is vague about what kind of information the agent will receive.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the amount of content it conveys.

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?

Despite the simple one-parameter schema, the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'details' includes and how it differs from sibling topic tools. It does neither, leaving an agent uncertain about expected return values and tool selection in a crowded sibling set.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'topic' is already well documented with examples in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details about a specific topic in Sefaria's topic system'), making the core action clear. It implicitly distinguishes from get_all_topics by emphasizing a specific topic, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or alternate scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many topic-related siblings such as get_all_topics, get_topic_graph, or get_ref_topic_links. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative suggestions, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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