topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a specific behavioral guarantee that 'sigma never toggles retrieval', which is useful context beyond the annotations. It also clarifies the read-only nature without contradicting annotations.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the key output components, and adds a critical behavioral note all in one concise statement with no filler.

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 and zero parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior. The mention of 'sigma never toggles retrieval' addresses a potential concern, and the read-only diagnostic label sets accurate expectations. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 score is 4. The description needs no parameter explanations; it appropriately focuses on output fields instead.

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 identifies the tool as providing a snapshot of memory-graph topology, listing the specific fields (N, C, L, sigma, community_count, regime). It differentiates itself from sibling memory tools by being a read-only diagnostic, not a retrieval or mutation 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 explicitly labels it as a 'read-only diagnostic', making the intended use case (inspecting topology) clear. It does not mention explicit alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters.

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