get-forum-topic

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 disclosure. It states what is returned (topic details and posts/replies) but does not mention default behavior for max_posts, include_raw semantics, pagination, error handling, or the structure of the response. For a read tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 that states the core function clearly without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is expected to explain what the tool returns. It does mention 'topic details and posts/replies' but omits details about defaults, ordering, or potential limits. For a relatively simple read tool, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% — all three parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond noting that posts/replies are included. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('VEX Forum topic by ID'), and specifies the scope ('including the topic details and posts/replies'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get-forum-post (which gets a single post) and search-forum (which searches).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about when this is preferred over get-forum-post or search-forum. The intended usage is only implied by the name and description.

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