tg_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the data is for supergroups and lists fields, but doesn't disclose read-only behavior, absence of side effects, sorting, pagination, or permissions. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool's purpose.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the first sentence summarizing output and the second providing a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No filler, but it omits parameter explanations, making it concise but slightly under-specified.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain limit/query usage, return format beyond field names, or edge cases (e.g., non-supergroup chats). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves important 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain 'chat', 'limit', or 'query'. While 'chat' is somewhat implied as the supergroup identifier, 'limit' and 'query' are completely unspecified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as returning forum topics for a supergroup, enumerating specific fields (id, title, unread count, closed/pinned state). It also distinguishes this listing tool from tg_history for reading a single topic, though the verb is implied rather than explicit.

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 this tool is for listing all topics, but the only explicit guidance is a pointer to tg_history for reading a single topic. It lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'not when' conditions, and doesn't mention when query or limit parameters would be relevant.

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