list_available_topics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It adequately describes the tool as a read-only discovery operation and lists the categories of information returned. While it does not mention rate limits or errors, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no side effects) makes this acceptable.

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 concise (3 sentences plus a bullet list) and well-structured with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It lists the categories of information but does not specify the exact structure or field names. For a discovery tool, this is mostly adequate, but slightly more detail would improve completeness.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It goes beyond by detailing the categories of returned information, adding significant value for an agent.

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 documentation topics and URI patterns for discovery' and enumerates specific categories, making its purpose and scope unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list specific subtopics (e.g., list_troubleshooting_topics, list_admin_topics).

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 advises 'Use this tool first to discover what documentation is available before requesting specific topics,' providing clear guidance on when to use it and implying that more specific tools should be used afterward.

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