Get network topology

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

Starts with 'Read-only' which aligns with annotations, and adds behavioral details beyond them: flagging structural issues and returning a structured payload with nodeCount, connectionCount, issues, and topology. The recursion advice is also useful. Annotations cover read-only/destructive hints, so this description adds meaningful context without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, no repetition of schema or annotation. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, alternatives, and practical advice. Front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the core action, making it easy to scan. Highly concise yet complete.

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 one parameter, a solid output schema, and annotations already present, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, what distinguishes it, and practical usage tips. Nothing important is left unaddressed for an agent to select and invoke it 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 root_path 100%, and the description enhances it by advising to use a specific network root rather than the project root, plus a note on recursion behavior. This adds practical meaning beyond the default value and basic type, though it does not go into deep detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('return the nodes AND the connections under a network root') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_td_nodes and snapshot_td_graph. It also notes a unique function: flagging structural issues. This fully clarifies what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use when wiring is needed, use get_td_nodes/find_td_nodes for node lists without connections, and snapshot_td_graph when parameters are required for diffing. Even advises token economy by targeting a specific root and leaving recursion off. This is exemplary.

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