get_topic_type

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. It states the tool 'Get[s] the message type,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires permissions, what happens if the topic is invalid, or any rate limits. The example adds minimal context but lacks details on error handling or output format.

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 very concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the example is brief and relevant. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the message type format), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'get_topics'. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a specific topic' and provides an example with '/cmd_vel', adding some meaning by indicating the parameter is a topic path. However, it does not explain the topic format, constraints, or what constitutes a valid topic, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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: 'Get the message type for a specific topic.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('message type'), and target ('specific topic'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_message_details' or 'get_topics', which might provide related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the topic must exist, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_message_details' or 'get_topics'. The example shows usage but does not explain when this tool is appropriate over others.

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