zulip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'recent topics' and a default limit, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text, and it's easy to scan. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall, it's efficient and well-organized.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to explain them, but it still falls short in other areas for a tool with no annotations.

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 description adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'stream' is explained as 'Stream/channel name' and 'limit' as 'Max topics to return (default 20)'. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description compensates somewhat by clarifying parameter roles, but it doesn't go into depth (e.g., format for 'stream', constraints for 'limit'), keeping it at a baseline level.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get recent topics in a stream.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent topics in a stream'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'resolve_topic', which could also involve topics, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_messages' (which might include topics) or 'resolve_topic', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is minimal guidance.

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