Topic Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, covering the tool's safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the name. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict but adds minimal value.

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 is clear, direct, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 read operation with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. However, it lacks information about the response structure (e.g., what fields 'detail' includes), which could aid an agent. Still, it is largely complete for its complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'topic_id' described as 'Topic ID'. The description repeats 'by topic_id' but adds no additional semantic meaning or constraints. With high schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate, earning a baseline 3.

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', the resource 'discussion topic detail', and the key parameter 'by topic_id'. This distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'topic' (list), 'topic_create' (create), 'topic_replies' (list replies), and 'topic_create_reply' (create reply).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the name and description imply usage for fetching a specific topic's details, and the sibling tool names offer implicit context (e.g., use 'topic' for listing). The lack of explicit guidance makes this score a 3.

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