Two tools with complete JSON schemas and basic descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and output schema clarity. 'topology' and 'claims' both have action enums and project parameters, but lack descriptions for most conditional parameters (claim_id, query, basis, format, kb_claims for topology; text, basis, confidence, source, depends_on, supports, contradicts, etc. for claims). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict what these tools return. Tool descriptions are generic and do not explain WHEN to use each action or what each returns. No error handling guidance. Naming is acceptable (verb_noun pattern) but parameter naming could be clearer (e.g., 'depends_on' vs 'dependency_ids').

• Document output schemas for each action. E.g., 'get_topology returns {nodes: [{id, text, basis, confidence}], edges: [{from, to, relation}], total_nodes: int}'. This enables agents to extract IDs for chaining.
• Add per-parameter descriptions for conditional fields. E.g., 'claim_id (required for get_claim, challenge, merge): UUID of the claim. Obtain via search() or get_topology().'
• Expand tool descriptions to explain action selection. E.g., 'topology: Query the reasoning graph. Use get_topology for full graph, search() for keyword lookup, get_claim() for a specific claim by ID, analyze_kb() for stateless analysis of external claims.'
• Add error handling guidance in tool descriptions. E.g., 'If project not found, call list_projects(). If claim_id invalid, call search() with keywords.'
• Specify numeric bounds and enum values in parameter descriptions. E.g., 'confidence: float 0.0 - 1.0 (required for register)', 'max_chars: integer 1000 - 100000 (default 12000)', 'result: enum [upheld, weakened, refuted, revised]'.