generate_topology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (Mermaid plus nodes/edges), the scope (per-site), and the optional inclusion of clients. However, it does not clarify what 'save it' entails (file location, side effects) or any permissions/rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output, then gives usage tips. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of inputs, output, and a key flag. It lacks detailed return-value structure or error conditions, but the core usage context is adequately covered.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The description repeats the purpose of 'site' and 'include_clients' but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention 'org_id' explicitly, though the schema covers it.

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 builds a per-site network topology as a Mermaid diagram with structured nodes and edges, specifying the included entities (gateways, switches, APs) and the data source (LLDP neighbors). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from all sibling 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?

It provides direct usage guidance: 'Provide a site name' and 'set include_clients=true' for client inclusion. The context for when to use is evident, though no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned relative to sibling tools.

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