topo_render

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 transparently states limitations ('PNG is not eNSP native, cannot prove devices start') and provides practical guidance on the 'scale' parameter. It doesn't describe error handling or file creation behavior, but covers the core behavioral aspects relevant to an agent.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, limitations, and parameter explanations. It's slightly verbose but not wasteful, and the structure (purpose → limitations → args) is logical.

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?

For a simple render tool with 4 parameters, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and key limitations. It doesn't detail the output format beyond 'PNG' but that's sufficient given the output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 fully compensate. It explains all four parameters: 'path' (file path), 'out_path' (default same name and directory with .png extension), 'scale' (increase to ~1.5 when crowded), and 'show_ports' (whether to mark interface names, default on). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema and includes usage hints.

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: 'draw the topology as an auxiliary PNG' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's not eNSP native and not for validation, so an agent can immediately understand its scope.

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: it's optional, for quick visual inspection without opening eNSP, and explicitly states that normal diagram creation and acceptance processes do not depend on it. While it doesn't name alternative sibling tools, it effectively implies when to use it (for rough layout preview) and when not (for validation).

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