list_ros_topics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists all topics with types and publisher/subscriber counts, which is the core behavior. However, it does not comment on side effects, permissions, or output format, leaving some ambiguity typical of a list operation.

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 a single sentence that directly states the function without any redundant or filler content. Every word contributes meaning.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the primary output and scope. There is no output schema, but the description suffices for basic understanding; it lacks explicit mention of behavior with the 'detailed' flag, but that is captured in the parameter schema.

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 only parameter 'detailed' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) as a boolean for showing detailed information. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantic, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'all ROS 2 topics' and what is delivered ('types and publishers/subscribers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_ros_nodes and list_ros_services.

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 for getting an overview of topics but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives like get_topic_info or monitor_topic. The context is clear enough for a simple list tool, but exclusions are not stated.

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