list_forum_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the per-topic return fields and the important invariant that the General topic is always id 1, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct value: scope, output, and an invariant. The essential information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 simple listing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and notes the general topic invariant. It does not mention ordering or pagination behavior, but the schema already specifies the limit cap and the tool's purpose is clear.

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 description coverage is 67%, so most parameter meaning is already provided by the schema. The description adds the example 'GLC' for chat_id and notes that the General topic is id 1, but does not add substantial detail about limit or query beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource: 'List topics in a forum supergroup', with a concrete example ('GLC'). It also enumerates the return fields, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_chats.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for forum supergroup topics, which implies when it should be used versus list_chats or chat_info tools. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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