ptv_buildCampusRecordingDemo

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

With no annotations, description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions sequential appearance of devices and links, IP application, and optional IOS commands, but omits details on error handling, side effects on existing networks, or behavior of parameters like retries and delays.

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 concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and ends with the intended use. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices parameter explanation and behavioral detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, return value information, parameter explanations, and details on what constitutes a valid campus plan.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 16 parameters (e.g., prefix, originX, scale, delays). It only gives a high-level summary of actions, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool builds a visually complex campus topology, with specific actions (devices, links, IPs, IOS commands). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ptv_addDevice or ptv_addLink by highlighting it as a composite demo/recording-oriented build.

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?

Description says 'Designed for course-design demos and screen recordings,' implying use for bulk/automated campus builds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for step-by-step or non-demo tasks) or name alternatives among siblings.

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