zahadun_memory_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only list operation but does not explain the 'tor' parameter, what 'common entries' means, or any requirements or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential details about parameters and behavior, which reduces its overall value.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain the 'tor' parameter or clarify the meaning of 'wspolnych,' and the absence of annotations leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 only parameter 'tor' is completely undocumented, and the description does not mention it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to add any meaning to the parameter.

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 a list operation on topics and entries in mesh memory ('Lista tematow i wpisow wspolnych w pamieci mesh'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from siblings like memory_search and memory_read, though the term 'wspolnych' (common/shared) is slightly ambiguous.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zahadun_memory_search or zahadun_memory_read. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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