guardar_topologia

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 .pkt is appended if no extension is given, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the file will be overwritten, where it is saved (directory), or what the return/success indicator is. The description adds some value but lacks depth expected for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. The primary action is front-loaded, and the extension-handling behavior is stated in the second sentence. No redundant text exists. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 tool is simple with one clear parameter, and an output schema exists (which may detail return values). However, the description omits information about overwrite behavior, file path/location, and error handling. For a persistence operation, these details matter to an agent deciding how to invoke it safely. The description is adequate but not fully complete for a mutation without annotations.

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 provides 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the parameter is the filename, that the .pkt extension is added automatically if missing, and gives a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (just a string type). It doesn't cover edge cases like path specification, but the core semantics are clarified.

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 action (saves), the resource (current topology), and the output format (.pkt file). This unambiguously distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are configuration, creation, or diagnostic operations. The example reinforces the purpose.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. However, the action 'save' is inherently distinct from the sibling tools, and the example gives a clear usage pattern. No explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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