get_profile_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 adds the context that profileId selects a 'lens, not a container', which clarifies the parameter's meaning. However, it does not describe the return format, side effects, or permissions required. More detail on what the 'representation' includes would be beneficial.

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 concise (two sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states the primary action, second sentence provides crucial usage guidance. No unnecessary words. It earns its place by being both efficient and informative.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the parameter and provides usage context. However, it does not describe the return value (what the AD topology representation looks like), which would help the agent understand the output. Given the lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that profileId selects a configuration profile and specifically a 'lens', which goes beyond the schema's trivial 'Path parameter: profileId' description. This semantic context helps the agent understand the parameter's role in the topology view.

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 retrieves 'a representation of the AD topology' and explains that profileId selects a configuration profile. It implies a contrast with the sibling tool 'get_topology' (which likely retrieves unfiltered topology), though not explicitly. This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's specific role.

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 provides explicit guidance: if the user hasn't specified a profile, the agent should call get_preferred_profile or get_preferences and use the preferredProfileId. It also warns against assuming profile 1. This helps the agent select and use the tool correctly. However, it could be improved by explicitly contrasting with get_topology for unfiltered cases.

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