list_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is purely a statement of function with no mention of what gets returned, whether it requires prior connection, what happens on invalid connectionId, or performance characteristics. For a read-only list operation this is a minimal gap, but with zero annotation coverage there's no safety signal at all.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the verb and resource and clearly conveys the core function. Very concise.

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 single-parameter list tool, the description is arguably adequate at a surface level. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no return format information, the agent cannot know what the result looks like or how to interpret failures. For a tool operating on connections (thematically similar to other connection-related tools), slightly more context about expected behavior would be warranted.

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 100% — the only parameter, connectionId, is described as 'ID of the connection to list topics for.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 when schema already fully documents parameters. No additional format, constraints, or behavioral context is added by the description.

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 states 'List all topics for a connection' with a clear verb (list), resource (topics), and scope (all topics for a connection). It's a specific purpose but doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tools like list_queues or subscribe_topic, so its differentiation relies entirely on the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_connections and list_queues exist, and the description doesn't clarify whether this is for listing only subscribed topics vs all available topics, or how it differs from related tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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