configurar_ospf

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation (configuration change) but does not state effects on existing configurations, whether the operation is reversible, any permission requirements, or error scenarios. The example gives a sense of input but not what happens after execution.

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, with the purpose front-loaded and bullet points for parameters. It includes an example that clarifies usage without excessive verbosity. It earns its place with minimal 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 (4 parameters, unknown output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not define two required parameters, lacks behavioral details, and relies on an example to infer structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return description, but input semantics are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 explain all parameters. It explains 'redes' with format and examples, and 'router_id' with an example, but omits 'router' and 'process_id' entirely. These are required parameters, leaving an agent guessing their meaning and 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 'Configura OSPF en un router Cisco' which identifies the specific verb (Configura) and resource (OSPF on a Cisco router). It is distinct from sibling tools like static routing or NAT configuration, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives. The example further clarifies the intent.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description simply states what it configures, without mentioning prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The example shows usage but does not clarify when OSPF is preferred over other routing methods.

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