agregar_etiqueta

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 implies a canvas modification by saying 'agrega' (adds), but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple add operation, this is minimal but not misleading; a 3 is appropriate given the lack of explicit behavioral detail.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a usage context and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 label-adding tool, the description includes a full usage example and typical scenarios. It does not detail the output (there is an output schema, but not described), yet given the simplicity of the operation, the absence of return-value details is unlikely to impede correct usage. The example effectively demonstrates the parameter order and types.

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 compensate. The example 'agregar_etiqueta('SEDE CENTRAL', 200, 50)' clarifies that 'texto' is a string and 'x' and 'y' are coordinates. However, it does not explicitly document each parameter or explain coordinate meaning beyond the example. This adds some value but could be more explicit.

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 function with a specific verb ('Agrega') and resource ('una etiqueta de texto al canvas'). It also gives example label texts that indicate typical use. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about device configuration or connectivity, none of which add text labels.

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 explicitly mentions when to use it ('Útil para documentar zonas de la topología') and provides an example. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives among the 40 sibling tools. Since the purpose is clear and no other tool appears to add labels, this is still adequate without explicit exclusions.

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