keep_get_topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP verb and parameter names — no note on payload size, pagination, or what topology structure is returned for a read-only, open-world call.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint and parameter list. Nothing is padded, though the parameter enumeration borders on restating the schema.

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 should convey what a topology response looks like or how empty dependencies behave, especially given the include_empty_deps flag. Two of four parameters are undocumented and the return shape is unstated, leaving the agent under-informed for anything beyond a blind call.

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 only 50%: provider_ids and include_empty_deps carry descriptions, while services and environment have none. The description merely repeats the four parameter names without explaining expected formats (e.g., comma-separated lists) or how services and environment interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Get topology services" gives a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint reference (GET /topology) reinforces that this is a read of the service topology. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as keep_list_applications or keep_list_providers, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must guess whether topology data belongs here or in keep_list_providers / keep_list_applications based on the tool name alone.

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