configurar_ruta_default

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It shows the exact command generated ('ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 200.0.0.1'), which clearly indicates it modifies router configuration. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., router must exist), whether it replaces an existing default route, or error handling. The example gives a concrete sense of the effect, but lacks details on side effects or edge cases.

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: three sentences total, including an example and the generated command. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 only two simple parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and provides a concrete example. An output schema is present (though not shown), so return value details are delegated. Missing elements like prerequisites or error handling are minor for such a straightforward configuration command. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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 compensate. The example 'configurar_ruta_default('R1', '200.0.0.1')' implies that 'router' is the device name and 'nexthop' is the IP address, and the generated command clarifies their roles. However, the description does not explicitly define each parameter, their types, or valid formats. It provides enough context via the example, but a formal definition would be stronger.

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 function: 'Configura la ruta por defecto (default route) en un router' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from other routing tools like static route, OSPF, etc., by explicitly defining what a default route does ('enviar tráfico desconocido hacia el ISP o gateway de salida'). The example and generated command reinforce 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?

The description provides usage context: 'Usada para enviar tráfico desconocido hacia el ISP o gateway de salida' (used to send unknown traffic toward the ISP or outbound gateway). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like static route for specific destinations, but the purpose statement makes the appropriate scenario clear. There's no explicit 'when not to use', but the context is sufficient for common cases.

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