get_forum_topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the limit range (1-100) and explaining pagination via offset_id/offset_topic, but does not disclose other behaviors like result ordering or default values, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with purpose, followed by a clear arg list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the argument explanations are terse and could benefit from a bit more detail without compromising conciseness.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main filtering and pagination options but omits the required 'chat' parameter description and any note about output structure (though output schema exists). This leaves the tool somewhat incomplete for a new agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains limit, search, offset_id, and offset_topic with meaningful details (range, filter, pagination). However, the required 'chat' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a critical gap for this tool.

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 'List of topics in forum-supergroup', using a specific verb+resource construction. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_forum_topics_by_id (single topic) and create_forum_topic (creation) by indicating the list operation.

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 implies usage for listing topics in a forum supergroup, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough from the resource type, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or guidance on scenarios.

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