환경주제 탐색

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the tool's behavior: no topic returns a list of topics with counts; with topic returns related entities. It sets correct expectations for a read-only exploration tool. No hidden side effects are mentioned, but the behavior is transparent enough for use.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the action and two behaviors, the second provides the intended use case. Every word is purposeful, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 moderate complexity (two modes) and no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does and what it returns in each scenario. It differentiates from siblings and provides sufficient context for an exploration 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?

The description and parameter description together fully explain the optional topic parameter. The description adds significant value by detailing the two distinct behaviors triggered by its presence or absence, going well beyond the schema's minimum.

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 tool's purpose: exploring the environmental topic map. It distinguishes between two modes (without topic for overview, with topic for detailed related items) and explicitly mentions the use case for teachers to browse or expand lesson ideas, which differentiates it from sibling search tools.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: for browsing the topic map and expanding lesson ideas. It implicitly contrasts with search tools by emphasizing exploration. More explicit differentiation from siblings like search_resources would improve it, but the context is already strong.

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