configurar_nat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing NAT configs are overwritten, if the router must be pre-configured, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 bullet points and a usage example. It is efficient, front-loads the purpose, and contains no fluff. The only minor improvement would be to reduce redundancy, but it is appropriately sized.

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 and the absence of schema descriptions, the description provides basics and an example but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., router existence, interface availability, ACL creation) and behavioral effects. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing 'router' parameter definition and lack of operational context leave room for error.

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 document parameters. It explains interfaz_inside, interfaz_outside, and acl_number with examples, but omits the required 'router' parameter entirely. The example shows it ('R1') but doesn't define it, so an agent may not know its purpose or format.

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 verb 'Configura' and the specific resource 'NAT overload (PAT)' with the purpose 'para salida a Internet'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like configurar_ruta_estatica or configurar_ospf by explicitly naming the protocol and goal.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for NAT configuration but does not mention conditions, exclusions, or when other tools would be more appropriate. An agent must infer from the name and purpose.

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