Filter Topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the query language syntax, permission-aware results (important for access control), and pagination behavior (implied through page/per_page parameters). It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, but provides substantial operational context.

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 densely packed with query syntax details but remains a single paragraph. While information-dense, it could benefit from better structure (e.g., bullet points for different filter types). Every sentence earns its place by explaining the query language, but the presentation could be more scannable for an AI agent.

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 filtering tool with 3 parameters (one complex), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about the query language and permission-aware results. It adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage, though it could benefit from explicit examples of complete queries and more detail about result format since there's no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the complex 'filter' parameter syntax in detail (key:value tokens, operators, date formats, etc.), but doesn't add meaningful context for 'page' and 'per_page' beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Filter topics with a concise query language', providing a specific verb ('filter') and resource ('topics'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'discourse_search' by focusing on structured filtering rather than general search, and from 'discourse_list_categories/tags' by targeting topics specifically.

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 implies usage context through the detailed query language explanation, suggesting this tool is for structured filtering of topics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'discourse_search' or 'discourse_list_categories', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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