get_lab_topology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and specifies the returned content (nodes, links, state). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, or describe any rate limits or permissions. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval, but not fully disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the contents returned. Every word is necessary, with no redundant 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?

The tool has a simple signature (1 parameter) and an output schema, reducing the need to describe return values. The description covers the key aspects: full topology, nodes, links, state. However, it lacks explicit statements about read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., if lab doesn't exist), or any postconditions. Despite that, it is complete enough for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 has only one parameter (lab_id, string) with 0% description coverage. The description does not add syntax or format details for lab_id, but the tool name and description make it clear that lab_id identifies the lab. This implicitly provides enough meaning for a single obvious parameter.

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: 'Get full topology detail for a lab: its nodes, links, and their state.' It uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource (lab topology) with the exact elements returned (nodes, links, state), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manipulate topology (e.g., build_topology, add_node).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies retrieval of topology details. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a lab to exist, or when to prefer this over list_labs or get_node_config. The usage context is implicit from the name and read-only nature.

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