get_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, effectively communicating that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that is front-loaded and directly states the purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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's simplicity (single parameter, read-only retrieval), the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand its core function. The lack of output schema documentation is not critical since the tool name and sibling tools imply a standard topic object is returned.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with a description 'The resource ID', which is adequate. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve a topic by ID' clearly specifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (topic). It is unambiguous but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_contact_topics' or 'list_topics', which also retrieve topics in different contexts.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies single-topic retrieval by ID, but does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for batch operations or when context is needed).

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