List Admin Topics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It responsibly discloses what the response contains (topic key, description, example usage) and the tool's role as a prerequisite discovery step for get_admin_guide. Given there's no output schema, disclosing the three returned fields provides meaningful transparency. Could add error handling info or an explicit note that it returns all topics without pagination, but for a list operation this is strong.

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?

Efficiently written at roughly 60 words with no wasted language. The structure is well-organized: opening declarative statement, scannable bulleted list of included fields, and a closing usage directive. Every element earns its place in the description.

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 zero-parameter documentation discovery tool, this is well-scoped. It covers what it returns, the structure of each topic entry, and how to use it with get_admin_guide. A minor gap: given multiple similarly-named siblings (list_available_topics, list_troubleshooting_topics), a one-word clarification of what makes 'admin' topics distinct could have further reduced ambiguity. Otherwise quite complete.

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 0 parameters, which per the calibration rubric establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameters and doesn't waste space discussing parameters. The description's focus on return schema (topic key, description, example usage) is appropriate given the parameter-free interface.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'List all available admin guide topics with descriptions.' It goes beyond a generic statement by differentiating itself from sibling tools like list_available_topics and list_troubleshooting_topics through explicit 'admin guide' scoping. It also anchors itself to a companion tool (get_admin_guide), which clearly positions it within the tool family.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this tool to discover what admin documentation is available before calling get_admin_guide with specific topics.' While it clearly names the companion tool, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with other similar listing siblings like list_available_topics or list_troubleshooting_topics, which would have been useful given their near-identical naming patterns.

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