topo_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the overwrite parameter and its default behavior, but does not explain what happens if the file already exists and overwrite is false (error or skip), nor does it describe success/failure outcomes or any side effects. For a file-creation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter details following in a structured list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Minor redundancy in saying 'empty' but it adds clarity. Overall efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, file path). It also omits error handling, permission requirements, or edge cases like invalid paths. For a simple creation tool, this is incomplete; an agent would need to guess expected outcomes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: path specifies the destination and overwrite controls overwriting behavior with a default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions, though it could be slightly more detailed (e.g., path format validation).

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 tool creates a new empty .topo file, using a specific verb ('新建' meaning create) and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like topo_add_devices or topo_connect, which modify existing topology, and topo_inspect which reads. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action itself.

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