get_topology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that dependencies are inferred from env/ConfigMap references and probe-observed connections, and that it flags Services with no ready endpoints. It also notes include_connections makes it slower. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation or if it has side effects, which would be useful given the lack of annotations.

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 a single but dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (graph) before elaborating on dependency inference and flagging behavior. It is efficient, though the long sentence could be split for easier parsing, but it conveys all necessary information without 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?

For a tool of moderate complexity, the description covers the main output (graph), the optional parameter behavior, and a notable flag. There is no output schema, so the description should hint at what the response looks like, which it does by describing the graph and flags. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but that's likely not critical for this tool. Overall, it's adequate for an agent to know when and how to call it.

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%, so both parameters (namespace and include_connections) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the note that include_connections=true is slower, which is extra value beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, with the minor addition not pushing it higher.

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: generating a Service->pods->workload graph with inferred dependencies, and flagging Services without ready endpoints. It uses a specific verb 'get' and identifies the resource. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, the specificity of the graph and dependency inference makes it distinct enough.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions include_connections for optional behavior but doesn't explain when this tool is preferable to other diagnostic tools like get_service_overview or get_network_policies. No when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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