tapatalk_get_participated_topics

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds the critical behavioral detail that authentication is required, and clarifies that 'participated' means posted or created. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, highly informative sentence that covers purpose and authentication. No filler or redundant content, making it exceptionally 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?

For a simple paginated list tool, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and auth. There is no output schema, but the return type (topics) is self-evident from the name and description. Minor omission: does not explicitly state that pagination is supported, but the schema for page/per_page fills this gap.

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 100%: both `page` and `per_page` are fully documented with defaults, minimums, and maximums. The description adds no additional parameter information, 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'topics the logged-in user has participated in', with additional clarification '(posted or created)'. This distinguishes it from sibling topic-list tools like tapatalk_get_topics, tapatalk_get_latest_topics, and tapatalk_get_unread_topics.

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 gives clear context: it is for retrieving topics the logged-in user has participated in, and it notes the authentication requirement. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the scope is unambiguous and appropriate for the tool's simple purpose.

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