Topic Replies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying pagination defaults (page=1, size=20) and range (1-50). No contradictions. However, it does not cover error behavior or handling of invalid topic_ids.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose (Get replies) and adds pagination details efficiently with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of thorough annotations and schema descriptions, the description is largely complete. It explains the key behavioral trait (pagination). It could mention the output format or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a read-only list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly stating pagination defaults and the size range. This helps an agent understand parameter constraints without relying solely on the schema.

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 action (Get replies), the resource (discussion topic), and includes pagination details. It distinguishes from sibling tools like topic, topic_detail, and topic_search by focusing specifically on replies.

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 fetching paginated replies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The name and context make it reasonably clear, but explicit usage instructions are missing.

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