jumpserver_topology

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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and additive: it discloses that probes are read-only, enumerates the evidence types (nginx upstream, ESTABLISHED socket, /etc/hosts), and explains the depth>=2 linking behavior. Auth/permission requirements and max-20 target behavior are only lightly implied.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the usage guidance. Minor redundancy between the description and the schema's depth wording, but no filler.

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 return-value burden and does so adequately by naming nodes (roles, ports, OS, load, memory) and edges (type, port, confidence, evidence). For a 7-param, nested-object tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 most meaning already lives in the schema. The description restates depth semantics rather than adding new parameter detail, so it earns the baseline rather than a bonus.

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 and resource ('Build the relationship graph between servers') and defines the graph's contents (hosts, ports, evidence sources). An agent can immediately distinguish it from jumpserver_inspect or jumpserver_assets, since the output is relationships, not inventory.

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 an explicit usage trigger ('what is the relationship between these hosts') and warns against guessing from names, plus notes the internal inspect probes it relies on. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when NOT to use it versus jumpserver_inspect directly.

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