analyze_topology

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

With no annotations, description fully bears transparency burden. It discloses outputs (graph, charts, matrix) and analyses performed, indicating a read-only analysis tool. However, it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur or mention performance impacts.

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 sentences efficiently convey purpose and outputs. Front-loaded with key action and resource. Could be slightly more concise, but no superfluous content.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers high-level outputs (graph, charts, matrix) but lacks details on return structure of each analysis component.

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 does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only describes the overall output.

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: analyze token topology with dependency graph, anti-pattern detection, and structure analysis. It differentiates from siblings by specifying unique outputs like dependency graph and anti-patterns.

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 implies usage for topological analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like analyze_coverage or audit_semantics. No exclusions or alternative guidance provided.

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