get_topic_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It mentions the return includes 'message type' but does not disclose other returned fields, potential errors for non-existent topics, or that it is a read-only operation. The lack of side-effect information and output details leaves the agent under-informed.

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?

A single sentence front-loaded with the verb and target, with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete regarding the exact set of returned information beyond 'message type' and any system prerequisites. The lack of an output schema increases the need for description clarity, and the minimal detail does not fully satisfy that need.

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 sole parameter 'topic_name' is fully documented in the schema with 'The name of the topic'. The description only repeats that it targets a specific topic, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific ROS 2 topic'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including message type') that separates it from sibling list_ros_topics and monitor_topic. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use (when a specific topic's details are needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives like list_ros_topics for enumeration or monitor_topic for live data. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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