Topology Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the substantive detail that the output covers topology name, cluster tolerance, and member feature classes, but adds nothing about path resolution, error behavior, or required licensing.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the return content with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not restate return structure, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the only thing the agent must supply – the meaning and expected form of topology_path – leaving the definition adequate but incomplete for a tool whose sole parameter is undocumented.

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 0% and there is exactly one parameter, topology_path, which the description never mentions. It conveys no format, scope, or accepted syntax for the path (e.g., whether it is a .gdb topology name or a full catalog path), so an agent must infer everything from the bare property name.

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 names a specific verb ('reads') and enumerates exactly what is read: topology name, cluster tolerance, and participating feature classes. That distinguishes it from the many topology-mutating siblings (create_topology, add_rule_to_topology, validate_topology), though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only inspection framing; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as arcgis_pro_analyze_datasets, arcgis_pro_dataset_schema, or arcgis_pro_gp_validate_topology, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., the topology must already exist).

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