limpiar_topologia

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 explicitly warns that the action is irreversible ('Esta acción no se puede deshacer') and clearly defines the scope (all devices and connections). This goes beyond what the empty schema indicates and provides critical safety information for a destructive operation. It stops short of describing any confirmation or rollback details, but the core destructive trait is transparent.

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 short sentences. The first states the action and scope, front-loading the key purpose. The second adds a necessary safety warning. There is no redundant or filler content—every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, destructive bulk operation, this description is complete. It clearly states what is removed (all devices and connections), the scope (canvas), and the irreversible nature. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. An agent has all the information needed to decide and execute the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers them (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific value (nor does it need to). It correctly implies that the action is global with no arguments.

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: 'Elimina TODOS los dispositivos y conexiones del canvas' (Eliminates ALL devices and connections from the canvas). It specifies the verb ('Elimina'), the resource ('dispositivos y conexiones'), and the scope (all, on the canvas). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'eliminar_dispositivo' and 'eliminar_conexion', which are targeted deletes.

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 usage context is implied through the bold 'TODOS' (ALL) and the warning, suggesting it is intended for clearing the entire canvas versus selectively deleting specific items. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives like 'eliminar_dispositivo' or 'eliminar_conexion' for targeted removal, nor any 'when to use/not use' guidance. It stops short of explicit guidance, so it earns a 3 for implied usage.

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