conectar_dispositivos

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool CONFIRMA el resultado: responde [OK] si Packet Tracer creó el cable de verdad, y [ERROR] con causas probables. It also reveals the prerequisite for serial cables (WIC-2T module) and that devices cannot communicate without cables. This goes beyond basic functional description to actual behavioral guarantees and side conditions.

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 densely informative, with clear section headers (FLUJO OBLIGATORIO, Interfaces comunes, Cables disponibles, CABLE SERIAL, Orden de operaciones, Ejemplos). Every section adds operational value. It is front-loaded with the mandatory flow, which is the most critical use constraint. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating that serial requires WIC-2T) is acceptable given the importance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 required, 9 cable types, device interfaces, serial prerequisites), the description covers all necessary context: when to call it, how to determine interfaces, cable selection guidance, serial module requirement, and example invocations. The output schema (though not shown) is referenced via the [OK]/[ERROR] confirmation behavior, so no missing return-value details are needed.

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 fully compensate. It explains device1/device2 implicitly through examples, lists all interface options per device model, and elaborates each cable type with its use cases and constraints. It even specifies the serial requirement for the tipo_cable parameter. The parameter semantics are fully documented.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Conecta dos dispositivos en Packet Tracer con un cable.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling conectar_router_a_pc by being the generic version, and from configuration tools by focusing solely on physical wiring. It also lists cable types and interface examples, further clarifying its scope.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'FLUJO OBLIGATORIO: Siempre llama esta función después de crear_dispositivo().' It states a condition for using it (only after creating devices), recommends obtener_puertos_dispositivo() if interfaces are unknown, and provides a step-by-step order of operations. It also names the alternative for serial (agregar_modulo_router) and when not to use it (without WIC-2T).

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