Export the Network Topology

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a whole-network snapshot rather than an incremental read, its output is round-trippable into create_full_network_topology, and it can include running-configs. It doesn't warn about payload size/verbosity on a large lab, which is the one practical trait an agent would want before calling.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, and the alternative-use sentence earns its place. Three examples is one more than needed — the 'export my lab' and 'back up this topology as JSON' examples cover essentially the same intent and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile; the description correctly spends its words on scope and downstream use instead. The only remaining gap is the include_configs semantics, which is the single thing an agent must get right to call it correctly.

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 single parameter include_configs has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden — and it only hints at the behavior indirectly via the example 'including configs'. It never says what setting include_configs=false does (omits running-configs, lighter result) or that the default is true, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name.

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 specific verb (export) and resource (the open network as a topology object), then enumerates exactly what is captured: devices with type/model/position/modules/running-config, links, and host IPv4 settings. That enumeration distinguishes it cleanly from the partial getters in the sibling list (get_devices_in_network, get_all_links, get_device_configuration) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases — feeding the result back to create_full_network_topology, saving as a study reference, and reviewing for mistakes — plus natural-language examples that map user intent to the tool. What's missing is an explicit exclusion, e.g. 'use get_devices_in_network if you only need the device list', which would fully settle the choice against similar-looking siblings.

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