list_topics

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the filtering behavior with wildcard support, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, result limits, or error conditions. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one clear sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every line serves a purpose, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 and clear annotations, the description plus schema covers the essential invocation details: required qmgr, optional wildcard name filter, and read-only behavior. It slightly lacks sibling differentiation and explicit output expectations, but the existing schema and annotations fill the major gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the documentation burden. It compensates well by explaining both parameters with concrete examples: qmgr is given as 'QM1' and name supports wildcards like 'DEV.*' or '*'. It does not explicitly state that name defaults to '*', though the schema provides that default.

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 as '列出主题对象' (list topic objects), identifying the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_queues and list_subscriptions by naming the exact object type.

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 use when the agent needs to enumerate topics under a queue manager, especially with optional name filtering. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_subscriptions or how to choose between them.

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