get_topology

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: what is returned (relationships, layers), how discovery works (SNMP, CDP, LLDP), and the nature of the data (automatically discovered maps). It does not discuss rate limits or performance, but for a read-only query tool, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan. However, it is verbose with repeated phrases like 'resource/device' and covers extensive explanatory material that could be condensed. Still, front-loading the purpose and returns helps agents quickly grasp 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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what topology is, when to use it, what information is included (layers, connections), use cases, and even how discovery works. This enables an agent to understand the tool's domain and invocation context thoroughly.

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 parameter 'fields,' which is adequately described in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or examples for this parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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's purpose: 'Get network topology information in LogicMonitor (LM) monitoring.' It specifies the exact resource (network topology) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_resources and get_resource via the 'Related tools' section, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section listing explicit use cases (e.g., understand network architecture, troubleshoot connectivity). It also names alternatives in 'Related tools,' guiding the agent on when to choose this tool over others. No explicit exclusions, but the guidance is comprehensive.

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