topo_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that omitting out_path returns content instead of writing to disk, and that CSV output produces two files with suffixes. However, it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. Since this tool writes files, it's a potentially mutating action, and the description should note any requirements (e.g., write access).

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 and organized into three bullet-like lines for the arguments. It front-loads the main purpose and then details parameters efficiently. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief example.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown) which likely describes return values, so the description needn't cover that. The description covers parameter semantics and file-writing behavior. It lacks error scenarios or edge cases (e.g., what happens if format is invalid), but for a simple export tool, this is adequate.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully explains path (file path), format (with values and their meanings), and out_path (output file path, optional, with CSV splitting behavior). This is exemplary compensation for the sparse schema.

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's purpose: exporting a topology into document-ready formats. It lists three concrete formats (mermaid, drawio, csv) and specifies what each yields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like topo_inspect or topo_render, which are inspection/rendering rather than export.

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 explains what each format is for (flowchart source, draw.io import, CSV device/link tables) and how out_path behaves (omitting it returns content instead of writing). It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings, but the export intent is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for output generation.

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