agregar_modulo_router

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that installation is hot-swappable, that 'auto' selects the correct card based on the router model, that ports are verified after installation, and that slot 0 is the first free slot. It does not mention failure modes or side effects like config preservation, but the disclosed behavior is substantial and consistent.

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 long but each section earns its place: purpose, mandatory rule, model mapping, workflow, module list, and slot clarification. It front-loads the primary purpose and progressive reveals procedural detail. No fluff, though the length is justified by the complexity.

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?

Complete for an agent: it covers prerequisites (serial dual-install), parameter specifics (modulo mapping, slot), workflow, and behavioral guarantees. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and when 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains 'modulo' with the 'auto' default and model-to-card mapping, clarifies 'slot' with the free-slot note, and the 'nombre' parameter is understood from the flow example ('agregar_modulo_router('R1')'). While not every parameter gets a dedicated line, the context suffices.

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 states a specific action ('Instala una tarjeta de expansion en un router') and adds the unique confirmation behavior ('CONFIRMA que los puertos nuevos aparecieron'). It is distinct from the sibling 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' because it explicitly enumerates non-wifi modules and never mentions wifi, making the scope clear.

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?

Provides a concrete workflow for serial links (installing cards on both routers before connecting), model-specific card selection rules, and a note about hot-swapping. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool for all non-wifi expansion cards and instalar_tarjeta_wifi for wifi', the omission of wifi from the module list implies this. The flow and rules give strong contextual guidance.

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