Latest topics

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real behavior: the recency ordering, the cross-section scope, and the note that boolean flags appear only when true. The visibility caveat on whoCanReply ('only visible in topic lists, not on the topic page') is genuinely useful context beyond annotations. It omits pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 first clause front-loads scope and ordering, and the field glossary is compact and information-dense. The semicolon-chained field list is terse to the point of being slightly hard to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably documents the row shape: section name, pinned, closed, whoCanReply enum-like values, pages, and author/time. That covers most of what an agent needs to consume results, though total counts and pagination metadata are not described.

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 100% and the single 'page' parameter is already documented as a 1-based page number. The description adds nothing about paging or page size, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and ordering: 'Recently active topics across all sections, newest first', which is more concrete than the bare title 'Latest topics'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling forum_list_topics, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The closest sibling, forum_list_topics, is never mentioned, so the agent gets no routing help between the two list-style tools.

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