explain_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool explains and cites sections with path/line numbers, but does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, error handling (e.g., topic not found), or output format.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every part adds value.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. Missing details on return value format, error behavior, and how citations are structured. Could benefit from examples or links.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (e.g., 'Topic to explain', 'Target SDK version'). The depth enum is implicit but not elaborated.

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 verb 'Explain' and the resource 'Udon/VRChat topic', with specific details about citing indexed repository sections with path and line numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_documentation or read_rule.

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 when an explanation with citations is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_documentation or search_examples. No exclusion criteria or specific context provided.

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