tg_topics

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add value beyond safety. It does so by listing the exact output fields (id, title, unread count, closed/pinned state). It does not detail pagination or query filtering, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by providing a cross-reference to an alternative tool.

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 read-only list tool with a small schema, the description covers the core purpose and return fields. The missing parameter semantics and lack of output schema details keep it from being fully self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description had to explain all three parameters but only implies chat as 'supergroup'. The limit and query parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess whether query filters by title, ID, or something else. This is the weakest aspect of the definition.

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 identifies the resource as forum topics of a supergroup and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, unread count, closed/pinned state). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the meaning is unambiguous given the sibling names. It distinguishes from mutation siblings like tg_topic_create and tg_topic_edit.

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?

It explicitly directs single-topic reads to tg_history with the format tg_history(chat, topic=<id>). This tells the agent when not to use tg_topics and names the alternative. It does not mention sibling creation/editing tools, but for a read tool the relevant routing is covered.

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