get_topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context by listing the types of nodes and edges returned (Services, workloads, Pods, etc.) and the two view modes. It also implies that without a namespace the graph is cross-namespace, adding a scoping behavior not present in the schema. This goes beyond the annotations without over-explaining.

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 efficiently written and front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence earns its place: it explains purpose, return value, view modes, namespace guidance, and points to an alternative tool. No 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 tool's moderate complexity, existing annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to scope it, which view to choose, and when to use an alternative. It adequately explains the output for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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 the parameter descriptions in the schema fully document each field. The description repeats the view modes and namespace recommendation but adds no new parameter syntax or format details. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 maps multi-service incidents or dependency graphs, returning Kubernetes resource nodes and edges. It distinguishes itself from get_neighborhood, which is for smaller focused graphs, and contrasts with inspecting resources one by one, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use for incident/dependency mapping, prefer scoped namespaces, choose view=traffic for routing/connectivity questions and view=resources for ownership/hierarchy. It also directs users to get_neighborhood when the suspicious root is already known, naming an alternative. This fully addresses when and when not to use the tool.

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