list_topics

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read/list operation (no state change implied). However, it doesn't disclose details like whether paths are fixed/canonical, whether the list includes all paths or is paginated, or whether the result includes only chapter numbers or additional metadata such as titles. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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?

One sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action (list) and the object (practical Tao reading paths) and adds the relevant detail (chapter numbers). No redundant wording.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource type and what information is included. It could clarify whether the output is a flat list or structured, but given the simplicity (0 params, no schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description's mention of the output (reading paths and their chapter numbers) is the main information an agent needs. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately explains what the tool returns.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'list' Tao reading paths with chapter numbers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_chapter (single chapter retrieval) and search_chapters (search) by indicating it returns reading paths – curated collections of chapters. However, it doesn't explicitly name the siblings it is not.

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?

Implied usage: this tool lists reading paths, so an agent would use it before reading chapters or to get a high-level overview of practical Tao paths. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_chapters, but the purpose is reasonably inferable from the description.

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