get_topic_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details' without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., if topic not found), or any side effects. The openness is insufficient.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundant words. However, it is almost too concise, lacking necessary elaboration for completeness.

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 presence of many sibling tools, two parameters (one cryptic), and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate what a 'topic' is, how to use the 'fields' parameter, or what the response contains. The description is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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 has zero descriptions for the two parameters. The description only clarifies 'fqn' via the phrase 'fully qualified name' but provides no explanation for 'fields' (e.g., format, allowed values). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action 'Get details', the target 'specific topic', and the key parameter 'by fully qualified name'. It is specific but does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_topic', which may also retrieve by name, causing potential confusion.

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 like 'get_topic' or 'list_topics'. The description lacks context for selection among similar tools.

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