hacer_ping

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

The description discloses that it does not actually execute a ping but verifies interface status and device existence, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the API limitation, providing valuable transparency beyond the tool name and 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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise explanation of method and illustrative examples. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present and a clear description of the check logic and limitations, the tool is adequately specified for an agent to use correctly. It could mention error conditions more explicitly, but overall it covers the essential usage context.

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 no descriptions, so the examples provide some meaning for the parameters, indicating source device and destination IP. However, it does not give detailed constraints or formats, so it only partially compensates for zero schema coverage.

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 it verifies connectivity via ping from a source device to a destination IP, with concrete examples. It distinguishes from broader diagnostic tools by specifying the exact operation and scope.

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 explains the internal method and PT's limitation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like diagnosticar_red or verificar_entorno. The context is implied from the examples but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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