infer_topology

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains adjacency, subnet merging, the /16 cutoff, and the Mermaid output format. The main gap is that VLAN inference is mentioned up front but not explained in the same detail as subnet inference.

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 concise and well structured: purpose first, then precise inference rules, each earning its place. There is no repetition of schema information and no 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. It covers the main algorithm rules and output type. The only substantive omission is the exact behavior for the VLAN portion of the stated purpose and any failure behavior.

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 description complements the schema by clarifying that the single devices parameter is a set of configs whose interfaces are parsed for network adjacency. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare field definitions, though it does not mention the optional vendor property.

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 states exactly what the tool does: consume multiple device configs, infer subnet/VLAN adjacency, and produce a Mermaid diagram. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like extract_device_facts or explain_config_diff by naming a specific output artifact and inference goal.

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?

"Given several device configs" provides a clear usage context, and the inference rules make it obvious when this tool applies. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but no sibling appears to perform topology inference, so exclusions are less critical.

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