List topics to resume (let the user pick)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it is read-only and promotes nothing, which is consistent. It also describes the return format (up to 5 candidates with fields), adding context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, usage note, then bulleted args. It is concise without filler, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It also links to the sibling tool mindmap_resume, providing a complete context for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%. The description rephrases parameter descriptions: 'query' as natural-language input and 'source' as optional origin restriction. This adds interpretative value over the schema-only descriptions.

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 lists distinct candidate topics for resumption when the user's description is ambiguous. It uses specific verbs ('list', 'ask') and resources ('topics'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like mindmap_resume and mindmap_list.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user's description is ambiguous or matches several topics. It provides a follow-up action to call mindmap_resume after user picks. No explicit exclusions, but clear guidance.

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