graph_topo_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the operation is a read (Get/Returns) and describes the ordering guarantee, but it omits notable traits such as what happens when the graph contains a cycle (no valid topological order) and any auth or size/performance limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the ordering guarantee and the ordering's provenance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return value (record keys in dependency order). It is largely self-sufficient for a read-only graph query, with the only gap being edge-case behavior such as cyclic graphs.

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?

Only one optional 'endpoint' parameter, and the schema already documents its format and env-var fallback at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (topological ordering of records in the dependency graph), and it clarifies the semantics of the ordering ('all dependencies appear before their dependents'), which separates it from the sibling graph_nodes/graph_edges listing tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes the result reflects AimDB's spawn/initialization order, which hints at when it is useful, but it names no alternative (e.g., graph_nodes) and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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