get-topic-sample-data-by-name

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It states a read operation ('get sample data') with no side effects, but omits details like pagination, format, or limits. The description is accurate but minimal, lacking transparency about return structure or performance implications.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It contains no fluff, but the structure is simple and front-loaded with the key action. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it could be slightly more efficient (e.g., removing 'fully qualified' if redundant).

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, read operation), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It names the resource and input. However, it does not hint at the output format (e.g., 'returns a list of messages'), which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is largely complete for this simple tool.

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% with a clear description of the 'fqn' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'fully qualified name'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get sample data (messages) for a topic by fully qualified name' clearly states the verb (get), resource (sample data/messages), and method (by fully qualified name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-topic' (which returns topic metadata) and 'get-topic-sample-data' (likely by ID), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 retrieving sample messages from a topic by FQN, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-table-sample-data-by-name' or 'get-container-sample-data-by-name'. It does not mention when not to use it or compare to other get-topic tools.

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