get_topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant context by detailing the returned data (nodes and edges for Services, workloads, Pods, etc.) and explaining the two views (traffic vs resources), which agents need to interpret the output correctly.

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?

Description is concise with four sentences, all front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary guidance without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the complexity of a topology mapping tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, return values, and usage alternatives. With no output schema but readOnlyHint, the description adequately explains what the agent will receive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of the 'view' parameter (traffic vs resources) and strongly recommending the 'namespace' parameter, providing meaningful usage context.

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 that the tool maps a multi-service incident or dependency graph, returning Kubernetes resource nodes and edges. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_neighborhood, which is for smaller focused graphs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (multi-service incident, dependency graph), when to specify namespace, which view to use for different questions, and recommends get_neighborhood as an alternative when the suspicious root is known.

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