Estimate a planned HCL topology by counting required devices, links, IP addresses, and services from your request so you can validate scale before building.
Use the same planner to count devices, links, addresses and services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the marginal fact that output involves counts of devices/links/addresses/services; it says nothing about determinism, error behavior, or relationship to a prior planning call implied by "the same planner".
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is compact and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the sentence is too thin for what the tool needs to convey.
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 tool taking a large nested topology request (templates, VLANs, routing, wireless settings, PC/laptop distributions) with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, a one-sentence description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no basis to construct a valid request or interpret the results.
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?
There is one required top-level `request` object wrapping ~30 nested fields, and schema description coverage is 0% (only two nested fields carry any schema text). The description provides no parameter guidance whatsoever, leaving the entire large request shape undocumented.
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 phrase "count devices, links, addresses and services" hints at an output, but "Use the same planner" references something never identified, and the description never states what the tool actually consumes or produces as a plan estimate. Against siblings like hcl_plan_topology, hcl_validate_plan, and hcl_explain_plan, an agent cannot tell which one to pick from this text alone.
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?
No when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. "Use the same planner" is a dangling reference that gives no selection criterion relative to the many planning-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.