List Troubleshooting Topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a structured list with specific fields (topic key, title, description, example usage) and that it is read-only in nature (listing). However, it does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive, which would be useful for a listing tool.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses a bulleted list to detail the return fields, and ends with a usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return fields, the purpose, and the workflow with get_troubleshooting_guide. It could be slightly more complete by noting whether the list is sorted or if there are any limitations, but for a simple listing tool, it is largely 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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by explaining the return structure and the purpose of the topic keys, which is essential for using the output with get_troubleshooting_guide. Since there are no parameters, the description's explanation of the output fields compensates for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 troubleshooting topics with descriptions, and explicitly notes it returns a structured list for use with get_troubleshooting_guide. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_admin_topics and list_available_topics by specifying the troubleshooting domain and its integration with a specific companion tool.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to discover what troubleshooting documentation is available before calling get_troubleshooting_guide with specific topics.' This provides clear usage context and names the alternative tool, making the workflow explicit.

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