check_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 describes what it checks and flags (line limits, addresses, couplers), which is informative. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the project, or what the output structure looks like. Since an output schema exists, the return format is covered, but the side-effect profile is not disclosed. The description adds value beyond the schema by detailing the specific validity checks, but stops short of full transparency.

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: the first states the tool's purpose and reference to the KNX Handbook, the second lists the specific checks performed. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every sentence adds essential information. There is no redundancy or padding.

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 zero-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what conditions it flags, which is all an agent needs to decide when to invoke it. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details. No prerequisites or additional context appear necessary, given the sibling tools like load_project imply a project is already loaded.

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 is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The tool takes no arguments, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource: 'topology capacity and individual-address validity'. It enumerates exactly what it flags (line limits, invalid/duplicate addresses, missing coupler), which distinguishes it from sibling check tools like check_naming or check_secure. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 its use case: validating topology constraints on a project. It provides clear context on what it covers, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since the tool name and description align with the 'check' family, the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately, but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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