Get network topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds valuable behavioral context: returns a structured object with nodeCount, connectionCount, issues[], and topology, and flags structural issues. The recursion advice is useful but not fully backed by the schema (no recursion parameter), preventing a perfect score.

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 compact and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the read-only nature and return shape, then provide usage alternatives and operational advice. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete: it states purpose, return structure, explicit alternatives, and practical usage constraints. The only minor gap is the unbacked recursion reference, but overall the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single root_path parameter, providing a basic description. The description adds meaningful guidance by advising users to point at a specific network root rather than the project root for token economy, which goes beyond the schema. The mention of recursion is slightly ambiguous since no recursion parameter appears in the schema.

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 returns nodes and connections under a network root, with the specific verb 'return' and resource 'network topology'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_td_nodes/find_td_nodes and snapshot_td_graph as alternatives for different needs.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use this when you need how nodes are wired together') and names alternative tools for other scenarios. It also gives practical token-economy advice: target a specific network root and avoid recursion unless needed.

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