get_top_topics

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

No annotations are provided. The description merely restates the tool's output without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data modification potential, or authorization requirements. The placeholder '[query]' adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the placeholder '[query]' is ambiguous and could be considered noise.

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?

With four parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination, or what 'top' means. The inclusion of '[query]' without schema support leaves the agent uncertain about input requirements.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal context by mentioning 'temas/intenciones' but does not elaborate on how parameters influence results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Spanish description states it shows the most common topics/intents in conversations. Verb is clear and resource is specific. However, the inclusion of '[query]' is confusing and does not correspond to any parameter in the schema, slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is a minimal phrase without any comparative information.

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