topn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden well: it labels the operation as read-only, documents the exact return shape, and explicitly warns that a non-null error means the SWQL query failed, not that no nodes are under load. Minor gaps such as sort order or invalid-metric behavior remain, but the disclosure is strong.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: read intent, core purpose, return shape, a critical error-semantics warning, and a terse parameter list. There is no filler.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return structure, parameters, read-only behavior, and error interpretation. It could be more explicit about how 'top' is determined or whether nodes are sorted high-to-low, but it is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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 provides only types and defaults, but the description meaningfully documents all three parameters: metric's allowed values, n's meaning and default, and target's config-source semantics. This fully compensates 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 clearly states the operation: return a Top-N list of SolarWinds nodes ranked by a health metric, and explicitly marks the operation as read-only. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not name an alternative tool or state what it is not.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nodes_list, node_status, or swql_query. The only usage hint is the parameter-level note about omitting target for the default, which does not help with tool selection.

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