openwisp_list_topologies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the HTTP endpoint and protocol sources but says nothing about pagination, result volume, authorization needs, or whether results are scoped by organization. For a collection endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

One structured sentence with category tag and endpoint path, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, though the endpoint path adds limited value to an agent that only needs to call the tool.

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 simple single-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It defines the domain and the filterable field but leaves the agent without pagination, authorization, or return-shape context that a collection tool typically needs.

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%, so the single 'organization' filter parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (network topologies) and enumerates the mesh protocols (OLSR, Batman-adv, WireGuard, OpenVPN) that produce them, which distinguishes it from siblings like openwisp_get_topology and openwisp_list_links. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the enumeration gives real differentiating texture.

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 implied usage is 'list topologies via mesh protocols', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-get_topology guidance. An agent can infer the read context but must choose between list_ and get_topology on its own.

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