How Tisty itself works

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: with no `topic` it returns the index, with a `topic` it returns a single page, and `topic` names must match the index's own naming. Return format detail is only sketched, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource, then the usage rule, then the default behavior — good ordering. The long inline topic enumeration duplicates the enum in the schema and makes the opening sentence a run-on, though it does aid routing at a glance.

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?

Two optional, fully documented parameters, no output schema needed, and the description states exactly what comes back in both the default and topic-specified cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters carry enum descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the defaults (topic→index, lang→English) and adds only the mild clarification that topic values are 'named as the index names it', which is a marginal but real addition.

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?

States a specific resource (Tisty's own Help pages, as shown on tisty.app) and enumerates the covered subject areas, which makes it unmistakable against document-oriented siblings such as read_doc, docs, and page_doc. An agent can tell this is product documentation, not the user's own content.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when the person asks how Tisty does something, and names the anti-pattern to avoid ('instead of guessing'). It does not name a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of a full routing rule.

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