get_topics

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

The description says 'List all topics,' but the openWorldHint annotation indicates the tool may return non-exhaustive results, so the claim of 'all' directly contradicts an annotation. The description also adds nothing about pagination, filtering, or response behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler words. However, it is concise to the point of omitting important behavioral and usage context, so the brevity is not fully appropriate for this tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect back and how to complete the request. It does not mention pagination, filters, sorting, or the open-world caveat, leaving an incomplete picture for a tool with seven parameters and a large sibling list.

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 71%, and the schema already explains most parameters including cluster, page, show, search, and perPage. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning; sortField and sortOrder are still undocumented in the schema, but their intent is fairly inferable from their names.

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 a specific action ('List'), resource ('topics'), and scope ('for a cluster'). The plural 'all topics' also helps distinguish it from singular tools like get_topic, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_topic, get_topic_configs, or post_topic. The only usage hint is the cluster scope, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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