get_va_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns 'intent and trigger phrases', which is useful behavioral context, but does not elaborate on other possible fields or limitations. With annotations covering the core safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence of 10 words that front-loads the verb. It is efficient and to the point, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more structure or detail. Still, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'intent and trigger phrases'. However, it does not fully describe the return format or place the tool in the broader Virtual Agent context. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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% for the single parameter sys_id, which is described as 'Topic sys_id'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 retrieves Virtual Agent topic details including intent and trigger phrases. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_va_topics_full (which lists topics) and get_va_conversation (which gets conversation details).

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_va_conversation or list_va_topics_full exist but are not referenced.

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