obtener_tabla_routing

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

With no annotations, the description takes on full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool sends commands (side effect) and that the output is not returned in the API response, requiring console inspection. This is a critical behavioral trait that is transparently disclosed. It does not mention any permission requirements, but for a show command in a simulator this is a minor gap.

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 three concise sentences plus an example, with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical limitation and then the example. Every sentence adds necessary information and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, why the output is only on the console, and an example. The presence of an output schema (not shown here) likely covers return values. Minor gaps include not specifying what happens if the device is unreachable or doesn't exist, but overall the definition is sufficiently complete.

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 provides no description for the single parameter 'nombre' and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so implicitly via the example call 'obtener_tabla_routing('Router0')', which indicates the parameter is a device name. However, it does not explicitly state that 'nombre' must be the name of a router or L3 switch, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the context.

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 the tool sends two specific IOS commands ('show ip route' and 'show ip interface brief') to a router or L3 switch. It identifies the resource and action precisely, and highlights a key differentiator from other diagnostic tools by noting the output appears on the device console, not via the API.

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 notes the Packet Tracer limitation (output not returned via API) and instructs the user to open the console to see results. This sets clear expectations for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling diagnostics like 'diagnosticar_red' or state when not to use it. The provided example adds practical guidance.

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