configurar_etherchannel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that 'on' mode requires both sides to be 'on' and lists the mode options, but omits what happens if the switch is invalid, if ports are unavailable, or the return value. Idempotency and overwrite behavior are also not addressed. Some context is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted list of modes, parameter details, and a complete example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The example makes usage unambiguous, and the front-loaded purpose helps the agent quickly understand the tool's role.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core concepts and gives an example, but it lacks information about return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., switch exists, ports free), and edge cases (e.g., overlapping ports). The output schema is not visible, so the description should have mentioned what the tool returns. This makes it only partially complete.

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 no parameter descriptions exist in the schema, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents 'puertos' with an example format, 'channel_group' with the valid range (1-48), and includes the 'modo' default via the example. The 'switch' parameter is not described but is self-evident from the context. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 configures EtherChannel (Link Aggregation) on a Cisco switch, lists the supported negotiation modes (LACP, PAgP, on), and provides a concrete example that includes all parameters. This distinguishes it from related tools like configurar_trunk or configurar_vlan, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the modes and gives an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for bundling ports for redundancy/bandwidth) or when not to use it (e.g., if ports are already in a channel). The usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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