Get Topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: this is an aggregate call that replaces 'dozens of file reads', signaling breadth and cost-savings. It doesn't discuss result size or pagination, but for a safe read the bar is lower.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it returns, followed by when to use it and the value proposition. Every sentence earns its place 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the four artifact categories. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it says nothing about volume or shape of the aggregate response.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_projects. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (full API surface map), then enumerates the contents: routes, middleware, auth patterns, database tables. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_auth_matrix or get_data_flow, which cover narrower slices of the same surface.

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?

Gives a clear condition: use it when you need overall architecture understanding without reading every file. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g. narrow questions better served by get_auth_matrix), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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