topology / rooted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are provisional, based on observed pools and configured root, and not canonical Orchard ranks, but it does not describe return format or edge-case 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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler and the main classification purpose is front-loaded. The dense domain jargon makes it less accessible, but it is not verbose.

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, and the description does not explain what the returned classification contains beyond the Branch/Graft/Whorl terminology. With 0% schema description coverage, it should compensate by clarifying chain_id, limit, and the configured root, but it does not.

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 the description does not explain the two parameters. It never defines chain_id or limit, leaving the required chain_id semantically undocumented.

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 identifies a specific classification operation: provisional rooted Branch/Graft/Whorl classification from observed pools and a configured root. It also clearly states it is not canonical Orchard ranks. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling topology.explore tool.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as topology.explore. The 'provisional' and 'not canonical' caveat hints at scope, but it is a limitation statement rather than usage guidance.

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