topo_add_devices

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does reveal important side effects: it adds devices batch-wise and auto-assigns console ports without conflicts. It does not mention failure modes, whether the topology file is modified/overwritten, idempotency, or what happens on invalid model/settings, so some behavioral aspects remain opaque.

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 uses a clean Args list, bullet sub-fields, an example block, and a one-line port note. It is compact, scannable, and free of redundant filler, making it easy for an agent to extract the necessary information quickly.

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?

The description is largely self-contained: it defines all device fields, references list_models for model details, and mentions topo_layout for coordinate placement. It does not state what the function returns or explicitly reference sibling add/remove tools, but the included examples and port behavior make it sufficient for common use.

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?

Although the JSON schema only has bare path and devices fields, the description fully documents the meaningful sub-fields (model, name, count, x/y, settings), marks model as required, gives defaults for name/count, and provides concrete examples. This goes well beyond the schema and removes ambiguity about the devices array's structure.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: '批量加设备' (batch add devices) to a topology, and the parameter examples clarify the operation. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like topo_layout and list_models by focusing on the add action, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose without opening the schema.

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 provides practical examples and a useful note about console-port auto-allocation from 2000 without conflicts. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as topo_create or topo_remove, leaving some selection guidance implicit.

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