luneos_list_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that each result includes a one-line description (useful) but omits read-only/rate-limit/pagination behavior and output structure. Adequate but with gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, then usage. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-param listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to call it. Slightly short of full completeness since it doesn't characterize output size or ordering.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Nothing to document, and the description correctly implies a no-argument listing call.

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (LuneOS knowledge-base topics), and return format (one-line description each). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like luneos_get_topic and luneos_search.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first to see what porting/debugging knowledge is available,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name the alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the first-step framing is strong.

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