obtener_estado_dispositivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns but does not state that it is read-only (though it implies it), nor does it mention error behavior, side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a status-query tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and a useful example. No redundant phrasing or filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists (indicated by the context signal), so the return format is defined separately. The description adds value by listing the fields returned. For a single-parameter read tool, it covers the essentials, though it does not address error cases or differentiate from sibling tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 for the 'nombre' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description offers an example ('obtener_estado_dispositivo("Router0")') that clarifies it expects a device name string. This provides some semantics, but it does not specify constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, whether the device must exist). The example compensates partially but not fully.

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 a specific verb ('obtener') and resource ('estado de un dispositivo'), and enumerates the returned fields (nombre, tipo, puertos, estado de conexión). It includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'obtener_puertos_dispositivo', though the mention of connection state makes it distinct, so it is not a full 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The example implies a typical call, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over obtener_puertos_dispositivo or listar_dispositivos, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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