listar_dispositivos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Devuelve la lista' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'antes de hacer cambios' suggests it does not modify anything, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it only reads the canvas. It also does not describe any limits, ordering, or potential variations in what is returned. Adequate but missing explicit declaration of non-mutating behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the use-case statement is brief and informative. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only list tool.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and when to use it. Although there is an output schema, its contents are not shown here, and the description does not detail the exact return format. However, for a simple list operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it 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?

This tool has 0 parameters, and the schema shows an empty properties object. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns.

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 specific verb ('Devuelve la lista') and a clear resource ('todos los dispositivos presentes en el canvas de Packet Tracer'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like crear_dispositivo, eliminar_dispositivo, and obtener_estado_dispositivo, which serve different purposes.

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 second sentence ('Útil para saber qué hay en la topología antes de hacer cambios') provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the use case is clear and distinct from more specific queries.

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