gns3_validate_topology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions what the tool checks but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements (though parameters suggest optional auth), rate limits, or what happens during validation (e.g., if it modifies the topology). The description is functional but lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and specific checks. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (validation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose but lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall it's adequate with clear room for improvement.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'project_id' refers to, when 'server_url' should be changed from default, or how 'username' and 'password' affect validation (e.g., for authenticated servers). With 4 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Validate network topology for common issues' with specific examples ('disconnected nodes, missing links, and configuration problems'). It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('network topology'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gns3_get_topology or gns3_list_nodes that might provide related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), compare it to sibling tools like gns3_get_topology (which retrieves topology data) or gns3_list_nodes (which lists nodes), or specify when validation is appropriate (e.g., after topology changes).

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