list_admin_topics

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

With no annotations, the description transparently describes the tool as a read-only listing operation. It details the output structure including topic key, description, and example usage. While it could mention error conditions or rate limits, the description discloses the expected behavior adequately.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and bullet points for output details. It is concise but could be slightly shortened by removing bullet points or combining lines. Overall, it maintains a good balance of clarity and brevity.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it in conjunction with get_admin_guide. It could mention edge cases like empty list, but the current completeness is adequate.

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 no parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the output format, which is not covered by the empty input schema. This extra context helps the agent understand what the tool returns, exceeding the baseline of 4.

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 lists all available admin guide topics with descriptions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_available_topics. It specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'admin guide topics', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before calling get_admin_guide with specific topics, providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying the complementary nature of get_admin_guide. No misleading statements present.

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