configurar_spanning_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes parameters and modes but says nothing about side effects, whether it overwrites existing configuration, if it requires the switch to be online, or what the response contains. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap. The example shows invocation but not outcomes.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, bullet-pointed modes, parameter notes, and a concrete example. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable.

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 complexity of STP configuration and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description covers parameter semantics and gives an example, but it lacks behavioral and environmental context (e.g., prerequisites, return format, error conditions). It is adequate for a straightforward call but not fully complete for an agent operating in a broader topology.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains vlan_id behavior ('si se especifica, aplica prioridad solo a esa VLAN'), prioridad constraints (0-61440, multiples of 4096, lower = root bridge preferred), and clarifies each mode. It does not describe the switch parameter, but the example implies it. This substantially helps an agent understand how to set values correctly.

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 and resource: 'Configura Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) en un switch Cisco.' It also specifies the available modes, making it distinct from other configuration tools like configurar_ospf or configurar_nat. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 guidance on choosing a mode (recommending rapid-pvst) but does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternative tools. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring a connected switch. However, the domain is clear from the name, and the mode guidance helps within the tool. Overall, usage context is partially implied rather than explicitly stated.

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