Get network topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only' confirming safety, and discloses additional behavior: returns nodeCount, connectionCount, issues[], topology, and flags obvious structural issues. This adds useful context beyond 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?

Two sentences plus a concise token economy tip. Information is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then optimization. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has an output schema, the description needn't detail return values but summarizes them. The single optional parameter, combined with clear usage guidance and behavior description, makes this fully complete for an agent to select and 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?

Schema covers the single parameter (root_path) 100%, with a description. The description adds usage advice (point at specific network root) which provides actionable guidance beyond schema, improving parameter clarity.

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 returns nodes and connections (wiring) under a network root, flagging structural issues. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('network topology'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_td_nodes and snapshot_td_graph.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you need how nodes are wired together'), when not to (use get_td_nodes/find_td_nodes for node lists without connections, snapshot_td_graph for parameters), and gives token economy advice (point at specific network root, leave recursion off).

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