configurar_wifi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically detects if the device is an AP or client, that client association requires matching credentials, and that a wireless card is needed for clients. It also notes that 'clave' is mandatory except for 'abierta' security. These are behavioral details beyond a simple 'configures wifi' statement, providing a clear picture of expected behavior and prerequisites.

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 with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by bullet points for security and key specifics, then the detection/association rule, the wireless card prerequisite, and examples. While it is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence adds value and no fluff is present. The structure (bullets and examples) aids comprehension.

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 4 parameters, an output schema (though not detailed here), and no annotations, the description covers the essential scenarios: configuring an AP, configuring a client with matching credentials, and the prerequisite hardware. It includes examples that demonstrate typical usage. It doesn't describe return values (covered by output schema) or error handling, but within the expected usage context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explains 'seguridad' with its allowed values ('wpa2-psk', 'wpa-psk', 'wep', 'abierta'), 'clave' as the password and its mandatory status except for 'abierta', and 'dispositivo' and 'ssid' through the provided examples. The examples directly map parameters to values, giving agents complete understanding of each parameter without needing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Configura SSID y seguridad de una red inalámbrica', a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it applies to both access points and clients. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' (install wifi card) and 'configurar_dispositivo' (generic device config). The purpose is unambiguous and concrete.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Para que un cliente se asocie, llámala con EXACTAMENTE el mismo ssid, seguridad y clave que su AP' and the prerequisite that a client must have a wireless card installed, referencing the factory Ethernet module that needs replacement. This implies when to use this tool vs. 'instalar_tarjeta_wifi' and gives concrete usage context, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for comparison.

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