seleccionar_escenario_red

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool activates a scenario and conditionally reapplies Z0 only if it exists, but it omits side effects, what happens when Z0 is absent, permission requirements, and whether the change is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the main action first and the conditional Z0 step second. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a state-changing operation.

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 network scenario selector with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It should specify allowed scenario values, preconditions, and the effect on the model when Z0 does not exist.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter has no description. The phrase 'escenario máximo o mínimo' hints at possible values but never states the accepted strings or format for the 'escenario' parameter, leaving a critical omission.

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 gives a specific action: activates a maximum or minimum network scenario and conditionally reapplies Z0 for that scenario. The resource and scope are identifiable, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling scenario tools such as validar_escenarios_operativos or ejecutar_escenarios_operativos.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent is left to infer that this tool should be called before running scenario analyses, but no alternatives or prerequisites are named.

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