deploy_example_topology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool creates a new lab without modifying an existing one ('as a new lab, unmodified'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, side effects, start behavior (despite a 'start' parameter), or what the response contains. This is partial but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause serves a purpose. It efficiently conveys the tool's core behavior and directs to alternatives without unnecessary 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?

The tool has three parameters with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, yet the description fails to explain the parameters or the tool's full behavior (e.g., whether the lab starts automatically). Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with this level of parameter complexity, lacking essential context for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the three parameters (name, start, lab_title). The description only mentions the tool's overall function, leaving the user to infer what the parameters do from names alone. This is insufficient compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 function: building an unmodified built-in example topology as a new lab. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('example topologies'), and distinguishes itself from the customization path by explicitly naming get_example_topology + build_topology as alternatives.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool for unmodified example topologies, and for customization use get_example_topology + build_topology instead. It also directs the user to list_example_topologies to see available options, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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