configurar_ruta_estatica

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the generated command, which is useful, but it does not cover side effects, prerequisites (e.g., router must exist), idempotency, error conditions, or whether it overwrites existing routes. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise: one action sentence plus one example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the example is immediately illustrative. Every word earns its place with no 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are presumably defined. The description covers the essential usage via the example. However, it does not explain when the route addition would fail (e.g., router not found, invalid network), or any constraints on the parameters. Given the tool's simplicity and the example, it is mostly complete, but missing preconditions and error 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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The example maps parameters to the command (router, red_destino, mascara, nexthop), adding meaning beyond bare names. However, it does not describe each parameter individually or clarify formats (e.g., IP notation), relying mostly on the example. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Agrega una ruta estática a un router Cisco.' It also provides a concrete example showing the generated command, which makes the purpose unmistakable and distinctly differentiates it from siblings like configurar_ruta_default or configurar_ospf.

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 clearly implies the tool is for adding static routes, which provides context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use configurar_ruta_default for default routes'), so it lacks explicit routing guidance but is still clear enough for an agent to infer.

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