list_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and 'the server is tracking' adds scoping context. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether system topics are included, and it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur. The description is adequate but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, resource, and scope in eleven words, earning its place.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'tracking' means or whether the result includes system topics, but for a list-names utility, the description is reasonably 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'payload' with no description (schema coverage 0%), and the description does not mention it. Since the parameter is optional and defaults to null, it may be a generic placeholder, but the agent receives no guidance on what to pass or why. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List' plus the resource 'names of MQTT topics' and scoping 'the server is tracking.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_topics (which would provide details) and configure_topic/delete_topic (which mutate).

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 context is clear: use this tool to get topic names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'for details, use describe_topics'). The sibling tool names provide implicit guidance, but the description itself offers no exclusions.

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