build_topology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that node ids are caller-chosen local keys not sent to CML, that omitted interfaces auto-select the next free interface, and that 'start: True' triggers immediate startup. It also explains the return mapping to real CML node ids, which is critical for subsequent operations.

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 moderately long but every section earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, node format, link format, start behavior, and return value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important decision-relevant information.

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?

This is a complex tool with 5 parameters and no annotations. The description covers the core purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics in detail, and return behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds extra value by explaining the local-to-real node id mapping, making it fully complete for an agent.

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%, but the description fully compensates with inline definitions for nodes, links, and start. It explains the local id role, the structure of node and link objects, and the meaning of start. Even though lab_title and lab_description are not explicitly described, their names and defaults make them self-evident.

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 opens with 'Create a whole lab - nodes, links, and configs - in one call', clearly naming the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from repeated create_lab/add_node/add_link calls by emphasizing the batch nature.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you already have a topology design in mind' rather than calling create_lab/add_node/add_link repeatedly. It also references list_example_topologies as a source of designs, giving clear context and alternatives.

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