diagnosticar_red

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It enumerates the specific failure types it detects (e.g., 'dispositivos sin ningún cable conectado', 'interfaces con IP pero sin cable'), states what it cannot see, and clarifies the interpretative caveat ('Que no reporte fallos no garantiza conectividad; que reporte uno sí garantiza que algo está mal'). This is comprehensive and disambiguating.

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 and efficient. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a bulleted list of detected issues, and a clear limitation section. Every sentence contributes critical information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, what it detects, what it cannot detect, and how to interpret results. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to decide to call it or understand its behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't. Any added meaning would be redundant. A score of 4 reflects that the lack of parameters means nothing is missing.

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 a clear verb ('Audita'), a specific resource ('la red construida en Packet Tracer'), and the exact purpose ('señala por qué NO funcionaría'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming it detects failures that other tools don't see because they only confirm command execution.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('Llámala SIEMPRE al terminar de construir o modificar una topología, antes de decirle al usuario que está lista'), and provides exclusions and limitations ('NO puede ver: subinterfaces 802.1Q, VLANs, tablas de routing ni el resultado de un ping'). This tells an agent exactly when to use it and what to expect.

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