get_network_topology

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe/idempotent. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so while it is concise, it is not optimally structured for utility.

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?

Given the complexity of network topology and the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'topology' entails, the response format, or how this tool fits with sibling tools like inspect_network or get_network_counts.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. While env_id is somewhat inferable, agent_token's purpose and usage are completely unclear. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool retrieves network topology for an environment. The term 'topology' distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_network or list_networks, though it could be more explicit about the differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_network or list_networks. The description only implies usage with an environment ID but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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