tie_topology

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output scope (domains, forests, trust relationships) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but it does not mention authentication, permissions, or return format details.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a single parameter definition. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 or annotations, the description does a good job of stating what the tool returns (domains, forests, trust relationships). It lacks details on response structure or edge cases, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only topology query.

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?

The schema only provides a type and default for profile_id. The description adds essential meaning by clarifying it is a 'Security profile id', compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('Active Directory topology') with an explicit enumeration of the content (domains, forests, and trust relationships). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_search_ad_objects or tie_catalog.

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 retrieving AD topology but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so the context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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