Describe Topology Block

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note about what a 'topology note' contains, what happens on an unknown block_id, or the return shape.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, given the ambiguity of 'topology note.'

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 read-only lookup keyed on an undocumented identifier, the definition omits everything an agent needs: what a topology block/note is, where block_ids come from, and how this differs from the sibling list/search tools. No output schema exists to offload return-value explanation.

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% and the single required parameter block_id is completely unexplained. The description does not compensate by clarifying what a block_id is, its format, or how it relates to blocks returned by list/search tools.

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?

States a verb (Return) and a resource (topology note), so the basic operation is inferable. However, it neither distinguishes itself from the many topology siblings (list_topology_blocks, search_topology_blocks, describe_topology_authoring_support) nor resolves the terminology mismatch between the tool name's 'block' and the description's 'note.'

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus list_topology_blocks or search_topology_blocks, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing block_id. The agent is left to infer that a block_id is required and where it comes from.

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