construir_topologia_desde_descripcion

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 explains the expected JSON format, mandatory fields (puerto1/puerto2), error handling (connection omitted if interface missing), accepted cable types, and a limitation (serial module not added automatically). This exceeds basic expectations for a complex tool, though it does not describe the return value or side effects on existing topology, which are partially covered by the output schema.

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 long but appropriately structured: it starts with the main purpose, then gives a code block with the expected JSON format, followed by key constraints and caveats. Every sentence adds value—the format is essential, the mandatory field note prevents errors, and the serial module caveat is critical. While somewhat verbose, it is justified for a tool with a single complex parameter.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers the input format, mandatory fields, cable types, error handling, and a critical limitation. It also mentions the intended use case. While it does not explicitly state that it creates devices and connections (implied by 'construye'), the output schema likely covers return details. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to know how and when to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document the parameter 'descripcion_json'. It provides a detailed JSON template with fields, examples, mandatory requirements, valid cable types, and configuration commands. This is comprehensive and goes far beyond the schema, making the parameter semantics crystal clear for an AI agent.

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 tool's purpose: it builds a complete topology in Packet Tracer from a JSON description of devices and connections. It specifies the verb ('construye'), the resource ('topología completa'), and differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on bulk reproduction of topologies rather than individual operations like 'crear_dispositivo' or 'conectar_dispositivos'. The mention of analizar_imagen_topologia() also provides a clear use case.

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 states when to use the tool ('Útil para reproducir topologías guardadas o generadas por analizar_imagen_topologia()') and gives a critical caveat about serial modules needing manual addition via 'agregar_modulo_router()'. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or list alternative tools for simpler tasks, though the context implies it's for complete topologies. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives.

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