get_active_topology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting that settings and YAML are reloaded from disk on every call, so edits take effect immediately. This reveals the tool's fresh-read behavior and implies it is non-mutating, though it does not explicitly state side-effect safety.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a single, relevant behavioral note about reloading. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it returns and a notable behavioral characteristic. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), but the mention of 'topology YAML' gives a hint. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist, and it correctly omits any param-related details.

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 specific verb 'Return' and the resource 'currently active lab topology', and explains what it contains (where work is performed, devices, links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like terminal operations by being the only topology-fetching tool, so an agent can easily identify its purpose.

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 implies when to use it (when you need the active topology) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions. Siblings are unrelated to topology, so the lack of explicit routing is less critical, but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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