hcl_plan_topology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only 'deterministic' (echoing idempotency) and 'never deploy' (echoing readOnly); it says nothing about what the plan contains, whether errors are raised for infeasible topologies, or how output is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the input contract, with no filler. It is arguably over-terse given the request complexity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 deeply nested 30-field topology specification with no output schema, the description omits any explanation of the request structure, template selection, or what the returned plan looks like. The annotations carry the safety story, but the calling contract is not adequately covered.

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 0%, and the single top-level 'request' parameter expands into ~30 nested fields (templates, pools, per-LAN counts, wireless settings) whose interactions are entirely undocumented in the description. Only 'strict TopologyRequest' hints at the request shape; the semantics of templates, custom_plan, and model overrides are left to the schema alone.

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 verb+resource pair ('build a plan') is specific, and 'from a strict TopologyRequest' identifies the input contract. However, the sibling list contains hcl_stage_plan, hcl_estimate_plan, hcl_explain_plan, hcl_fix_plan, hcl_validate_plan and hcl_backend_topology, and the description gives no basis for choosing this one over any of them.

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?

'Never deploy' is the only usage signal, and it merely states the tool does not mutate — which the annotations already say. There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other five plan-related siblings, nor on prerequisites (does a project need to be open first?).

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