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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, states 'Side effects: None (read-only)', and discloses the return shape ('JSON structure'). It leaves out error behavior and any scale/size limits on the exported graph, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the read-only nature front-loaded via the tag. There is minor redundancy between 'as a DAG' and 'Returns JSON structure', which are loosely overlapping claims, but no filler otherwise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for return values, and 'Returns JSON structure' is too vague to tell an agent the shape of a topology graph. For a two-optional-parameter read tool it covers the essentials, but the return-value gap matters given the missing output schema.

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%, so max_depth ('Hop depth') and focus_node_id ('Optional node ID to center graph on') are already documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema - it never mentions depth or focusing behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Export current project topology graph (nodes and active edges) as a DAG.' This clearly separates it from the mutating siblings map_update_edge and map_invalidate_edge, which modify the same graph. It does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 '[PUBLIC READ]' tag and 'Export current project topology' phrasing imply the tool is for reading the graph, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, so the agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to the map_update_edge/map_invalidate_edge tools.

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