get_lab_topology

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads a topology from a file path but does not state whether the lab must be currently open or running, what happens if the path is invalid, or describe the return format. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 minimal and front-loaded, containing exactly two sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and one describing the parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 is simple (1 parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, reducing the need to describe return values. The description covers what the tool does and the input meaning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., behavior when lab not found) but are acceptable 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Full path to the .unl lab file' which provides format and meaning beyond the raw schema field name 'Lab Path'. The single-parameter simplicity and clear description are highly effective.

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 this tool retrieves 'the full node/network connection topology of a lab', using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'lab topology'. It distinguishes from siblings such as 'get_lab' (general lab data) and 'get_lab_links' (only links), and is appropriately scoped.

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 implies usage for retrieving topology but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_lab_links' or 'get_lab'. No exclusions or conditions stated, which is acceptable for a simple data-retrieval tool but lacks explicit differentiation.

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