Get Tagged Topology

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only 'Return' operation and describes filtering semantics, but it does not disclose traversal behavior, size limits, errors, or other edge cases. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 short, front-loaded with the main operation, and every line provides useful parameter-level information. There is no filler or repetition, making it efficient to scan.

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 simple read operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, this is close to sufficient. However, it never explains what 'tagged-topology graph' means, and it lacks clarifying context about when the filters should be used or what the returned graph contains.

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 schema only provides types and defaults, while the description adds meaning for both parameters. It explains that filter_brick matches a Brick class fragment and that filter_haystack keeps objects whose tags include all specified values, which goes beyond the schema.

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: it returns the tagged-topology graph, with optional filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_devices or list_objects, but the resource name and domain are concrete enough that the purpose is not vague.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions. It mentions full or filtered results, but leaves the actual selection context to inference.

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