configurar_vlan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does and presents an example output. It does not describe error conditions (e.g., duplicate VLAN ID, invalid ID range), idempotency, side effects on existing configuration, or whether the operation is reversible. The absence of such context leaves the agent uncertain about potential 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 concise, consisting of a purpose statement and an example. The purpose is front-loaded, and every element serves to clarify usage. There is no redundant information; it is efficient and easily 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 absence of annotations and the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters), additional context is needed. The description does not explain prerequisites (e.g., must target an existing switch), valid VLAN ID ranges, or potential conflicts. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered elsewhere), the lack of usage boundaries and error handling details leaves the agent under-informed for a configuration-mutating tool.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It does so via the example mapping 'configurar_vlan('SW1', 10, 'VENTAS')' which indicates the order and provides sample values. However, it does not explain value constraints (e.g., VLAN ID range, name length, character restrictions), leaving some ambiguity. The parameter names themselves are fairly descriptive, but the example only partially compensates for the missing schema details.

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 action: 'Crea y nombra una VLAN en un switch Cisco' (creates and names a VLAN on a Cisco switch). It provides an example call with expected output, making the purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like configurar_trunk or asignar_puerto_vlan, which handle different aspects of VLAN management.

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 implies usage through the example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisite conditions (e.g., switch must exist, must be in configuration mode) or when not to use it (e.g., for port assignment). The example gives a calling pattern but lacks guidance on selection among similar network configuration tools.

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