gns3_get_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 states the tool is a read operation ('Get') and returns data in 'one call', but lacks details on authentication needs (despite username/password parameters), rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. This is insufficient for a tool with authentication parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful scope clarification. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, authentication, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks crucial details like parameter explanations and behavioral context, leaving gaps for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'project' but doesn't explain the four parameters (project_id, server_url, username, password) or their roles. The description adds no meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address authentication semantics or server connectivity.

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's purpose: 'Get complete network topology for a project' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('network topology'), and 'Returns all nodes, links, and project information in one call' elaborates on scope. It distinguishes from siblings like gns3_get_node or gns3_list_nodes by emphasizing 'complete' topology, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for retrieving comprehensive topology data, but it doesn't mention when to choose this over more specific tools like gns3_get_project or gns3_list_nodes, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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