describe_topics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. 'Describe' suggests a read-only operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state whether it returns details, whether multiple topics are handled, or any side effects. It is too minimal to inform the agent about the tool's operational traits.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key information and earns its place without filler.

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?

The tool is simple but the description omits essential details about the input format, even though an output schema exists. The generic 'payload' parameter is unexplained, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a single 'payload' parameter with anyOf object/null and no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description says 'by name' but fails to explain how names should be provided in the payload. This leaves a critical gap in understanding how to correctly invoke the 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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and clearly identifies the resource ('MQTT topics') and the means of selection ('by name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_topics, which list topics, and configure_topic/delete_topic, which modify them.

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 a use case (get details on one or more named topics) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_topics or other describe tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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