list_troubleshooting_topics

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (topic key, title, description, example usage) and notes it is a read operation. No side effects or destructive actions are implied. Some limitations (caching, real-time) are not mentioned, but overall transparency is high.

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?

Description is concise: three sentences plus a four-item bullet list. No filler. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 no output schema, description adequately describes return structure. It also contextualizes usage with get_troubleshooting_guide. For a parameterless listing tool, it is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline is 4 as per guidelines. Description adds value by explaining the output structure, which enhances understanding of the tool's purpose, though not directly related to parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all available troubleshooting topics with descriptions' and explains it returns a structured list for use with get_troubleshooting_guide. It distinguishes from sibling get_troubleshooting_guide by specifying it is a discovery 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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this tool to discover what troubleshooting documentation is available before calling get_troubleshooting_guide with specific topics.' This defines when to use (before get_troubleshooting_guide) and implies when not (if topic already known). Also names the alternative tool.

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