list_topic_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the fixed pagination behavior (每页 20 条/20 items per page), but omits other behavioral traits like read-only safety, ordering, or rate limits.

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 with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and scope, includes pagination detail, and avoids redundancy with the schema. Every element earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter list operation with good schema coverage. However, lacking an output schema, the description omits what fields the notes contain, their format, or how to handle empty results. Also lacks explicit differentiation from 'list_notes' despite its existence.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds crucial semantic context: it implies the relationship between 'topic_id' (知识库/knowledge base) and the results, and specifically mentions the page size (20) which explains the effect of the 'page' parameter beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 defines the scope (获取/retrieve, 笔记列表/note list) and distinguishes from sibling 'list_notes' by specifying '指定知识库内' (within specified knowledge base). It identifies the resource and constraints precisely.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_notes' or other retrieval tools. While the topic-scoping implies usage, there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations.

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