obtener_puertos_dispositivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states that the tool queries Packet Tracer, reflects installed hardware, and reports which interfaces are free or cabled. It doesn't mention error behavior or explicitly say it's non-modifying, but the verb 'Lista' and the nature of the tool make this clear.

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 efficient and well-organized: purpose first, then hardware-reflection rationale, then a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers behavior, hardware dependency, result content, and a use case. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only says 'Nombre' with 0% coverage, but the description provides a precise example (obtener_puertos_dispositivo('R1')) that clarifies the parameter is the device name. This adds the needed meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 identifies the tool as listing the REAL interfaces of a device and their cable status, with the distinction that it reflects installed hardware. It differentiates itself from generic device-listing tools by emphasizing hardware reflection and its purpose for connection decisions.

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 explicitly states the main use case: it's the reliable way to know which interface to use in conectar_dispositivos(). It gives clear context without naming other alternatives explicitly, but the reference to conectar_dispositivos is practical and concrete.

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