topics_list_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping by region, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The tool is read-only, so the lack of destructive hints is acceptable.

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 one short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate but minimal. It could mention that it returns a list of ARNs or that the output schema provides details. It does not cover potential error conditions.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'region'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the region context. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 topic ARNs in a region. The verb 'List' and resource 'topic ARNs' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like topics_create_topic, topics_list_subscriptions, etc., which perform different operations.

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 topic ARNs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention other tools like topics_get_info for detailed info.

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