configurar_pc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the DHCP override behavior (“dhcp: True ... ignora ip/mascara/gateway”) and provides an example, but it does not mention side effects such as whether existing configurations are overwritten, prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), or error behavior. The transparency is partial rather than comprehensive.

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: a purpose statement, a usage directive, a bullet-like parameter list, and an example. It is informative without being verbose, and front-loads the critical “use instead of” guidance. Slightly more compact could be possible, but every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and an example. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device existence) or error handling, but these are minor gaps for a configuration tool of this simplicity.

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%, so the description must explain parameters fully. It does: each parameter is described with its purpose, format examples (e.g., IP format, subnet mask, gateway), defaults (dns='8.8.8.8'), and interaction (dhcp ignoring others). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 verb (“Configura la IP”) and resource (PC, Laptop o Servidor), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `configurar_dispositivo()` by directing use “para endpoints.” This makes its scope unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.

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 an explicit usage directive: “Usa esta función en lugar de configurar_dispositivo() para endpoints,” naming the alternative and the condition that selects this tool. This is a clear when-to-use instruction with a sibling reference, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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