topology_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It openly states that results are pattern-matched and not type-resolved, which is crucial for interpreting confidence. It also proactively explains behavior for the no-match and topology-disabled cases, providing useful operational context beyond the basic scan action.

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 exactly three sentences: purpose, pattern details, and caveat/edge-case behavior. Every sentence delivers distinct value, and the structure front-loads the most important information. No fluff or repetition.

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, the description appropriately explains the nature of results (confidence annotations) and the edge cases (no matches, topology disabled). It doesn't fully specify the result shape, but given the tool's read-only scanning nature and the pattern-match caveat, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit read-only statement, though 'scans' implies safety.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the kinds of patterns matched (e.g., 'http.HandleFunc', 'r.GET', '@app.route') which indirectly clarifies the 'framework' parameter, but it doesn't add direct semantic value for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scans topology nodes to identify HTTP handler and CLI entry-point functions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling symbol-lookup tools like workspace_symbols or get_definition, and it specifies the domain (routes/CLI entry points) and the action (scanning topology nodes).

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 makes the intended use case evident by detailing the language patterns scanned (Go, Python, Swift/Vapor) and the output caveat ('pattern-matched, not type-resolved'), which implies it should be used when approximate route discovery is acceptable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over generic symbol tools.

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