configurar_dhcp_servidor

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'activa el servicio y añade el pool', which is a visible effect, and it imposes the Server-PT restriction. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing pool, idempotency, or any prerequisites (e.g., server must exist and be a Server-PT). This is adequate but incomplete for a mutating configuration tool.

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 well-structured with a clear leading sentence, bullet points for key parameters, and a concrete example. It is slightly verbose but each part adds value (e.g., the VLAN relay tip and the example). The main action is front-loaded, and the example serves to clarify usage without excessive fluff.

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 (8 parameters, no annotation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, scope, key parameter semantics, a usage example, and a VLAN-specific hint. It does not detail every parameter or error conditions, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in most scenarios. The explicit router exclusion and relay guidance add valuable context that goes beyond the schema.

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 clarify parameters. It defines 'gateway', 'ip_inicial', and 'dns' explicitly, and the example clarifies the positional order. However, it leaves 'mascara', 'interfaz', 'max_usuarios' unexplained beyond their names and defaults, which may be ambiguous (e.g., what does 'interfaz' mean for a server? Default FastEthernet0). This partial coverage does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: 'Crea un pool DHCP en el servicio DHCP de un Server-PT' and explicitly distinguishes it from routers ('no en un router'), which clearly separates it from the sibling tool configurar_dhcp likely used for routers. It also maps to the DHCP tab of the server's Services, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool: for creating a DHCP pool on a Server-PT, and even provides guidance for multiple VLANs ('llama una vez por pool y usa 'ip helper-address...'). It excludes routers explicitly. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool for router DHCP, but the exclusion is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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