topo_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('读') and describes the returned data, but it does not explicitly state that no modification occurs, nor does it cover edge cases like missing files or error behavior. The note about consolePort adds useful context for downstream usage, but the description is not exhaustive.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary action and outputs are stated first, and the second sentence adds a crucial, actionable detail (consolePort mapping) without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and a single parameter, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: it explains what is read and what is returned, and even how to interpret a key field (consolePort). It does not mention error conditions or file prerequisites, but those are not essential for an inspection tool with a simple interface.

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 has zero description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying that the path points to a '.topo' file, which clarifies the expected format. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the parameter's meaning, though it doesn't elaborate on path resolution or 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 verb ('读' = read), the resource (a .topo file), and the specific outputs (device list, link list, free interfaces per device). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like topo_create or topo_layout by focusing on inspection, and even ties its output to device_* tools via consolePort, making its role 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: to inspect a .topo file and retrieve device/link/interface data. It also hints at how to use the output with device_* tools via consolePort, which gives practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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