Runik AI

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Create' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., side effects, required permissions).

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. It could be longer to include key details without being verbose.

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 many sibling create tools, no output schema, and an opaque parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a request. It lacks information on required fields or expected behavior.

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 'data' parameter is described only as 'the provided data' with no schema details. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what properties the object should contain.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is vague and does not specify what type of record is created. The tool name includes 'areas_negocio', but the description fails to reflect that, making it indistinguishable from generic create tools among many siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other create tools for different entities. The description provides no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but may be too terse. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.

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?

No output schema and description does not mention return values or error handling. Context is insufficient for a complete understanding of usage.

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?

Description only mentions 'by ID' without explaining the 'id' parameter's meaning, format, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 says 'Delete a record by ID', clearly indicating the action and the means of identification. The resource is implied by the tool name 'areas_negocio_delete', so it's distinguishable from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., areas_negocio_update or other delete tools). No prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent of safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, caching implications). With annotations carrying the burden, the description is minimally adequate but not enriched.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded and direct.

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 simplicity, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks specificity about the entity type (areas_negocio) and what happens if the ID is not found. The tool name and title partially compensate, but the description itself is generic.

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 input schema has one parameter (id) with no description, resulting in 0% schema description coverage. The description states 'by ID', clarifying the purpose of the id parameter as the record identifier. This adds meaningful semantics 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?

The description 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action (get) and object (single record by ID). However, it does not explicitly name the resource 'areas_negocio', relying on the tool name and annotation title for specificity. This makes it distinguishable from list/delete operations but not from other 'get' siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list, create, update, or delete. The description does not mention scenarios such as retrieving one specific entity by its ID, nor does it exclude misuse.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool supports filters, search, sort, and pagination, but does not go into further behavioral details such as pagination defaults or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and capabilities with no extraneous words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and 6 optional parameters. The description covers the type of operation (list with filters, search, sort, pagination) but does not describe the return structure or any specific default behaviors, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, but the description groups parameters into categories (filters, search, sort, pagination), adding high-level meaning. However, it does not provide specifics on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema names imply.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'areas_negocio table', and the supported operations (filters, search, sort, pagination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like areas_negocio_get, which retrieves a single record.

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 implies usage for listing multiple records with optional controls, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other list tools or areas_negocio_get.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral details. It does not disclose consequences, authorization needs, or response behavior beyond the generic 'Update'.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous information, but it is under-specified for practical use. Conciseness is appropriate for a simple operation, but value is low.

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 lack of parameter semantics, missing entity identification, and no output schema, the description is too brief to enable proper selection and invocation by an AI agent.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain what 'data' object should contain or any constraints on 'id'. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Update an existing record by ID' is generic and does not specify the entity (Áreas de Negocio). The tool name and annotation title provide the context, but the description itself lacks specificity to distinguish it from other update tools in the server.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'areas_negocio_create' or other entity updates. No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false), but description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create'. There is no contradiction, but no additional transparency about side effects, permissions, or validation.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary detail and does not earn its place as a useful guide.

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 nested object parameter, no output schema, and zero parameter coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, validation, or how to structure the input.

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 only parameter 'data' of type object is described only as 'provided data', adding no meaning beyond the schema name. With 0% schema description coverage, this fails to explain expected fields, format, or constraints.

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 'Create a new record' is generic and does not specify the resource type. The tool name and annotation title provide context, but the description itself lacks specificity and fails to distinguish from many sibling create tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other *_create tools. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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

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

The description merely states 'Delete', which matches the destructiveHint annotation. It adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions, which is a 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 extremely concise with only 5 words, no fluff. However, it sacrifices specificity for brevity.

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 simple operation (delete by ID) and annotations providing destructive hint, the description is minimally adequate but lacks entity specification. Without the title, the agent might confuse which entity is being deleted.

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 only parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description simply says 'by ID' without clarifying what the ID represents. For a delete operation, the meaning is somewhat implicit, but the description fails to add value.

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 'Delete a record by ID', which is a clear verb and resource, but it does not specify which entity (e.g., auditorias_sustentabilidad). Given sibling delete tools for many entities, the agent needs entity context, which is only provided in the title annotation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other delete tools or any prerequisites. The agent must infer from context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide, such as return format or error handling. Given the annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise at five words, front-loading the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informativeness. Conciseness is good, but not at the expense of completeness.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description barely meets minimal completeness. It does not mention return values, typical usage scenarios, or error conditions (e.g., behavior when ID doesn't exist). The annotations hint at read-only and idempotent, but the description lacks critical context for an agent to use it reliably.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (id). The description merely states 'by ID' without specifying what the ID represents (e.g., internal numeric ID, external reference), its format, or any constraints. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful parameter semantics.

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 'Get a single record by ID' clearly indicates the action (get) and scope (single record). Combined with the tool name and annotation title 'Get Auditorías de Sustentabilidad', the entity is unambiguously identified. However, the description itself is generic and does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools on the server, relying on the name for specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list or update tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations (e.g., the record must exist), or any conditional logic. Sibling tools exist for the same entity, but the description does not help an agent choose among them.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds no extra behavioral details beyond listing. No contradiction.

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?

Single concise sentence containing all necessary high-level information. No wasted words.

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 list tool with 6 parameters and nested objects, the description is minimal. It lacks detail on pagination behavior, return format, and filter/search syntax. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, but description only mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without clarifying parameter formats, types, or behavior (e.g., how search works, filter structure). Barely adds meaning.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'all records from auditorias_sustentabilidad table', and mentions optional capabilities. It distinguishes from get and other list tools effectively.

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 states what it does but does not explicitly say when to use vs alternatives like get or other lists. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description only states 'Update' which is consistent but does not disclose behaviors like error handling if ID not found, whether partial updates are allowed, or any side effects beyond the mutation.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of providing necessary details. It lacks structure and fails to convey important information.

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 presence of a nested object parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what fields are updatable, validation rules, or expected return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'by ID' but does not describe the 'data' object parameter structure, required fields, or format. This is insufficient.

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 'Update an existing record by ID' clearly indicates the verb 'Update' and the action on a record, and the tool name specifies the resource type (auditorias_sustentabilidad). This distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like create, delete, get, list.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update vs create or get. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with creation. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more detail without being verbose.

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 10 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description is too minimal. Missing parameter formats and usage examples.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only paraphrases source→process→destination, failing to explain individual parameters like source_type, dest_config, or frequency.

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 'Create a new Pilo automation' with a parenthetical pipeline hint. It distinguishes from siblings like automations_delete or automations_run, though it could more explicitly separate from automations_update.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., automations_run for execution). No prerequisites or context for when creating is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate destructiveness. However, no additional behavioral context is provided, such as irreversibility or cascading effects. The description adds no value beyond annotations.

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 very concise at three words, but could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose. However, it is front-loaded and to the point.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description is minimal. It tells the action but omits parameter semantics. Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform the agent.

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 only parameter 'id' is not described at all in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not mention its purpose or format. The agent receives no help in understanding what value to provide.

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 'Delete an automation', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like automations_create, automations_get, etc., which have different actions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that it should be used when an automation needs to be removed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so description does not need to restate. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, response structure). Meets minimum with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, and description does not indicate what 'details' are returned (e.g., fields, format). For a simple getter, more completeness is expected to set expectations.

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%. Description does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter beyond the schema, failing to explain what it represents or how to obtain it.

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 'Get details of an automation' clearly specifies the action (Get) and resource (details of an automation). Among siblings like automations_list and automations_update, this uniquely identifies retrieving a single automation's details.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automations_list or automations_run. No mentions of prerequisites or context for selection.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It does not mention pagination, filtering, or output format, which would be helpful for a list tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource.

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?

The description is adequate given no parameters and good annotations, but it lacks mention of return format or scope (e.g., pagination, filtering), which would improve completeness for a list operation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so no description of parameter semantics is needed. Baseline 4 applies, and the description does not need to add anything.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all Pilo automations', distinguishing it from sibling tools like automations_get or automations_create.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automations_get, automations_log, or automations_run. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single short sentence with no extraneous words; ideal conciseness.

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?

No output schema and no parameter descriptions leave the agent underinformed about what the tool returns and how to use parameters.

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?

Parameters 'id' and 'limit' are not described in the description, and schema has 0% coverage. Agent must infer their meaning.

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?

Clearly states verb 'view' and resource 'execution history of an automation', distinguishing it from other automation tools like get, list, create.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like automations_get or automations_run, nor any when-not conditions.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies state) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavioral detail. It does not explain what 'preview' means in terms of side effects, nor does it describe return values or error conditions.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and default behavior. Every element 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?

Given no output schema, the tool is a side-effecting action. The description lacks details about what happens after execution (e.g., logs created, automation state changes). It also does not explain the difference between preview and actual run.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints at the dry_run parameter via 'preview by default', but does not explicitly define either parameter (id or dry_run). An agent is left guessing the purpose of id and the exact role of dry_run.

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 'Execute an automation (preview by default)' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like automations_create or automations_log. The mention of 'preview by default' adds useful behavioral context, though 'preview' could be more explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., automations_log for logs). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects or permissions required. It simply states the action, which is already implied by the name.

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 extremely concise: just four words. While there is no fluff, it fails to add meaningful information beyond the tool name. A middle score reflects the trade-off between brevity and completeness.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the basic update operation, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use the config objects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not describe any of the 7 parameters, including nested objects like dest_config and source_config. The agent has no clue what these fields mean.

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 'Update an automation', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It differentiates from sibling tools like automations_create and automations_delete. However, it doesn't define what an 'automation' is in this context, which could be ambiguous.

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 provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, usage context, or scenarios are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false (write) and destructiveHint false. Description confirms create but adds no additional behavioral details such as response format, required permissions, or side effects.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail to be useful.

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 simplicity (one required param), the description still fails to provide necessary context about the data structure or behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 only parameter 'data' is an object with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description merely says 'with the provided data', offering no information about expected fields or structure.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' which is vague and does not specify the resource type 'capacitaciones'. It barely distinguishes from sibling create tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other create tools. The description lacks context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

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

The description merely repeats the destructive nature already indicated by `destructiveHint: true` in annotations. It adds no additional behavioral context such as whether deletion is reversible, cascading, or requires special permissions.

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 very short and front-loaded, but its brevity sacrifices necessary specificity. It is concise but under-informative.

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 simple nature (one param, no output schema), the description should at least name the resource being deleted. The current text is insufficient to distinguish this tool from many other delete tools on the same server.

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 single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description provides no value beyond the parameter name. The description does not clarify the format, range, or purpose of the ID.

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 'Delete a record by ID' is generic and does not specify the resource type ('capacitaciones'). It fails to distinguish from numerous sibling delete tools, which all have similar descriptions. The verb is clear but the resource is vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other delete tools. The description provides no context, preconditions, or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds 'by ID' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, return format). With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds marginal value.

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 very concise (one sentence, 5 words). It is front-loaded with the action and key information. However, it could add a bit more context without becoming overly long.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., full record, specific fields). Given the complexity of a simple get operation, the description is missing important context about what the agent should expect as output. Additionally, it does not hint at error conditions (e.g., if ID not found).

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 coverage is 0% (no description for the 'id' parameter). The description mentions 'by ID', which clarifies the role of the id parameter, but does not explain expected format, constraints, or behavior. For a single parameter, the description should provide more detail, such as 'unique identifier of the capacitation record'.

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 indicates the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single record'), and the method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list' (multiple records) and 'create/update/delete'. However, it does not explicitly name the resource as 'capacitaciones', which is inferred from the tool name and annotations.

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 implies usage when a specific record ID is known, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of list when you have an ID'). The sibling tools create a CRUD context, but the description alone offers no direct comparison.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond listing capabilities, so it does not significantly enhance transparency.

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 a single sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and features without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main capabilities but lacks details on default pagination, sort direction behavior, and filterable fields. Given no output schema and standard list tool expectations, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description explains the purpose of parameters like filters, search, sort, and pagination (limit, offset), compensating for 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not clarify the structure of 'filters' object or the 'sort_dir' enum.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'capacitaciones table', and it distinguishes from siblings like capacitaciones_get (single record) or capacitaciones_create/update/delete (write operations).

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 implies listing with optional filters and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like capacitaciones_get or other list tools. No exclusions are provided.

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

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

Annotations provide basic hints but description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., partial vs full update, side effects). Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise but lacks critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently clear.

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?

No output schema, no explanation of return value or behavior. Missing details needed for a complete understanding.

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% for parameters. The description does not clarify the structure of the 'data' object or valid fields, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Update an existing record by ID', which combined with the tool name indicates updating a capacitaciones record. However, it is generic and does not differentiate from other entity update tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, delete, or list. Lacks context for selection.

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

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create', such as required permissions or side effects.

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 one sentence, which is concise, but lacks meaningful content. It is minimally acceptable length but fails to add value.

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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description should explain return behavior or entity specifics. It does not address what happens after creation or reference the entity.

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 single parameter 'data' is an object with no description schema coverage at 0%. The description provides no information about expected properties, structure, or constraints.

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 says 'Create a new record' but does not specify the resource type (certificaciones de empleados). The name implies the resource, but the description lacks explicit context, making it hard to distinguish from many sibling create tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other create tools. With many similar tools, the description should clarify the context or selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructive nature; description adds no behavioral context beyond what is obvious. No mention of side effects, irreversibility, or confirmation requirements.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) but at the cost of informativeness. It is not verbose, but lacks substance; could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the simple parameter, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient to help an agent understand the tool's role in the domain. It does not mention the resource type or any behavior beyond deletion.

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 has one required parameter 'id' with no description; the description only repeats 'by ID' without adding any semantic meaning or format details. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fails to compensate.

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 'Delete a record by ID' is generic and does not specify the type of record, despite the tool name and title indicating employee certifications. It restates the verb and resource but lacks distinctiveness among many similar delete tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools). No context about prerequisites or situations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond stating it retrieves a single record, which is already implied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be improved by noting what the response contains (e.g., full record details). It lacks completeness regarding return value or error scenarios.

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%. The description only mentions 'by ID', which clarifies the purpose of the id parameter but does not explain its format or meaning (e.g., what kind of ID, from which system). Minimal value added.

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 'Get a single record by ID' combined with the tool name and annotation title clearly indicates this tool retrieves a single certificaciones de empleados record. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool, but the description itself is generic and doesn't explicitly name the resource.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like certificaciones_empleados_list. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists records with optional features (filters, search, sort, pagination), which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or rate limits are disclosed.

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 a single, clear sentence of 11 words, free of fluff. It is appropriately concise, though could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown of parameter roles.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for complete usage. It omits return value structure, pagination behavior, and specific filter syntax, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only lists parameter families (filters, search, sort, pagination) without explaining format, structure for the nested 'filters' object, or how 'search' works. This adds minimal semantic value beyond parameter names.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'certificaciones_empleados table', clearly distinguishing it from create, get, update, delete siblings. It states exactly what the tool does.

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?

It implies usage for reading records with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. the 'get' tool for single records or alternative approaches. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Update' adds minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects, but the annotations partially cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices informational value. It could be expanded to include parameter details without losing brevity.

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 nested object parameter and lack of output schema, the description fails to convey sufficient detail for correct usage. It omits the data object's schema, update semantics (partial vs full), and any error behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. The 'data' object's expected structure is completely unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance on what fields to include.

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 'Update an existing record by ID' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling create, delete, get, list operations. However, it omits the entity name 'certificaciones de empleados', which is present in the tool name but not in the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, related tools, or when not to use it is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral details such as whether it requires specific permissions or how it handles conflicts. With annotations present, the description meets the basic bar but does not exceed it.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simple create tool, the description covers the basic action but lacks details on the parameter structure and return value. Given no output schema, the agent has no idea what the tool returns. It is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the 'data' parameter. It only says 'with the provided data' without describing the required structure or fields. This is a significant gap as the agent cannot infer what data to provide.

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 it creates a new record, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly specify that it is for 'controles internos', relying on the name for differentiation. Among many sibling create tools, the description lacks distinction but the purpose is evident.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Create a new record' without any context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without direction.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so description's 'Delete' is consistent. No additional behavioral context provided.

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?

One sentence, no waste. Could be improved with a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Abs minimal for a simple delete. Lacks info on entity context or consequences, but functional.

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 coverage is 0%, and description adds no meaning beyond the schema. 'by ID' is vague; no format or constraints.

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?

Clear verb 'Delete' and resource 'record', but doesn't specify domain (controles internos) beyond the name. Still unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description only states the action without context.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is implied by the tool name and schema. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description's minimal contribution is adequate.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource. For a simple tool with one parameter, this length is appropriate.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on the return value (e.g., what is returned, whether it returns null if not found). With many sibling tools, more context about the scope or typical usage would help, but the description does not provide it. Thus, it is adequate but not 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 input schema has only the 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'by ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have elaborated on what the ID represents (e.g., the internal ID of the controls internos record), but it does not.

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 'Get a single record by ID', which specifies the action (get) and the resource (record by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'controles_internos_list' which retrieves multiple records. However, it does not explicitly mention the entity name 'controles internos', though the tool name provides that context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'controles_internos_list' instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, and the only implicit guidance comes from annotations indicating it is read-only and non-destructive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. The description adds that the tool lists records with optional filters but does not disclose any additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination limits, sorting defaults, or performance considerations).

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all records') and concisely lists supported features. No redundant information.

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 has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain default behavior (e.g., default limit), pagination mechanics, return format, or any constraints. This leaves the AI agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without explaining the meaning of each parameter (e.g., structure of the filters object, allowed sort fields). This adds minimal value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'controles_internos table', and specifies optional capabilities (filters, search, sort, pagination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like controles_internos_get (single record) and controles_internos_create/update/delete.

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 implies usage for listing multiple records with optional parameters, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over controles_internos_get or other list tools. However, the context of CRUD operations makes it clear.

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

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

Description only says 'Update', which implies mutation. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, idempotency, or side effects) are disclosed beyond the verb.

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?

Description is a single sentence, concise but overly minimal. It is not wasteful, but lacks necessary structure to be truly helpful.

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 no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks completeness. An update operation typically needs details on allowed fields, return values, or error conditions, which are absent.

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 has two parameters (id, data) with 0% coverage in description. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to or what the 'data' object should contain, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.

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 states 'Update an existing record by ID', which clearly indicates the action but fails to specify the resource type (controles internos), making it hard to distinguish from other update tools like areas_negocio_update or riesgos_update.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete). No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

The description only states 'create', which implies mutation, but adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations (which already set destructiveHint=false). No side effects, permissions, or return behavior are disclosed.

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?

At 8 words, the description is too brief to be useful. It sacrifices clarity for brevity; this is under-specification, not conciseness. A minimally viable description would at least mention the resource type.

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 has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what to provide in 'data' or what the result will be, making the tool unusable without external documentation.

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 single parameter 'data' is a required object with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what data should contain, format, or expected keys, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is vague. It does not specify that it creates a Controles SBIF/CMF record, unlike its sibling tools which have more specific titles. The purpose is unclear and fails to distinguish from many other 'create' tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming deletion. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object.

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 simple nature of the tool (delete by ID), the description is mostly complete. However, it does not specify the resource type (Controles SBIF/CMF), which is present only in the title. With many sibling delete tools, specifying the resource would improve completeness.

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%, so the description should compensate. However, it does not explain the 'id' parameter or its role. While the schema shows id is required, the description adds no value beyond what is already visible.

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 'Delete a record by ID' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (record by ID). It distinguishes from sibling operations like create, get, list, and update.

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 implies the tool is for deleting a specific record, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear from the name and siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('Get by ID'), which is consistent with the annotations but does not disclose any additional traits such as response size or required permissions.

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 extremely concise at one short sentence, with no extraneous wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, which is good for quick scanning. However, it omits important details about parameters and output, but this is a trade-off for brevity.

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 lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description still leaves gaps: it does not explain the return format, possible errors (e.g., record not found), or any side effects. The agent must rely on external knowledge or trial and error to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by ID' without explaining what the 'id' parameter represents (e.g., system ID, record number). No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 'Get a single record by ID' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (a single record, which is implied to be a 'controles_sbif' record from the tool name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list' which retrieve multiple records, but does not differentiate from other entity-specific 'get' tools beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'controles_sbif_list' for browsing or 'controles_sbif_create' for insertion. It does not state prerequisites, conditions for use, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic description.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds optional parameters but lacks details on filter formatting, search syntax, or pagination defaults.

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?

One sentence effectively covering purpose and optional features; no wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Lacks description of return format or default pagination behavior, but given parameters include limit/offset, pagination is implied. Adequate for a list tool with annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description maps generic parameter names (filters, search, sort, pagination) to these terms, but does not explain their exact format or expected values.

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?

Clearly specifies verb 'list' and resource 'controles_sbif table', and mentions optional filters, search, sort, and pagination. Distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools.

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 vs alternatives like get. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive, idempotent false, etc., but the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'update'. It doesn't explain partial update behavior, required fields in the data object, or potential side effects.

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 a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, but trades informativeness for brevity. It would benefit from adding resource-specific context within the same length.

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 lack of output schema, no parameter descriptions, and minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an AI agent. It doesn't specify what the update returns, the format of the data object, or any constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal meaning: it mentions 'by ID' for the id parameter but offers no explanation for the 'data' object, which is a required nested object. The agent has no guidance on its structure.

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 action (update) and identifier (by ID). However, it does not explicitly mention the resource type (controles SBIF/CMF), though the tool name provides that context. It effectively distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools.

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 implies the need for an existing ID but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create' or 'get'. No context on prerequisites, concurrent updates, or validation.

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

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

The description correctly indicates a write operation (create), consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 single sentence is concise but lacks structure and essential details. It is not effectively front-loaded with critical information.

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?

The description is severely incomplete given the tool has one opaque parameter and many siblings. It does not explain the record type, data structure, or how to use the tool effectively.

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 only parameter 'data' (type object) has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not explain its structure or expected fields. The agent cannot determine what data to provide.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is vague and does not specify that it creates an 'empleados' record. It reads like a generic description that could apply to any create tool, failing to distinguish from sibling create tools like areas_negocio_create.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over other create tools or alternative methods. The description omits any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the deletion action. No contradiction.

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?

One succinct sentence with no extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Minimal but adequate for a simple delete operation with one parameter and destructiveHint annotation. No output schema or return value details provided.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not add meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond its type. No format or domain clarification.

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 'Delete a record by ID' clearly states the verb and required parameter. The resource is implied by the tool name and annotations. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools by entity context.

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 when/when-not instructions, but the CRUD context of sibling tools makes usage implied: use for deleting an employee record by ID. No alternatives mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'get', but does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. Could mention return value format, but not essential.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description clarifies that 'id' is used for lookup. Minimal addition but sufficient for a single parameter.

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 'Get a single record by ID', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like empleados_list.

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?

Usage is obvious: use when you need a single record by ID. No explicit exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying optional features like filtering and sorting, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function. No unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema and no explanation of return format. The description does not describe what the list returns (e.g., array of records, fields). Parameters are not fully detailed. Given the complexity (6 params, nested filters), the description is insufficient.

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 coverage is 0%; the description only mentions categories (filters, search, sort, pagination) without explaining individual parameters' meaning or format. Given the lack of schema descriptions, more detail is needed to help the agent invoke correctly.

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?

Clearly states verb 'list', resource 'empleados table', and optional features (filters, search, sort, pagination). It effectively differentiates from sibling list tools that target other tables.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list endpoints or create/update tools). The description lists capabilities but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent; description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'update'.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no waste, but could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple update tool with known domain, but lacks return value info and parameter details.

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 coverage is 0%; description provides minimal parameter meaning ('by ID' for id) but no details on data object structure.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'record', distinguishing from sibling tools like crear, obtener, listar, eliminar.

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?

Implies use when modifying an existing record, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like create or delete.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint false, etc.). No details on required fields, validation, side effects, or what happens on creation.

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 one sentence and short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information, earning a low score for conciseness.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, many siblings), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, required fields, or how to structure the input.

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 single parameter 'data' is an object with no description in schema and 0% schema coverage. The description only says 'with the provided data', adding no meaning about expected structure or constraints.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is generic and does not specify that it creates a security incident, making it vague. The name and annotation title provide context, but the description itself lacks specificity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternative create tools among numerous siblings. No criteria for choosing this over others.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as side effects or requirements.

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 extremely concise at two words, but conciseness is undermined by missing essential information. It could be slightly longer to add specificity without being verbose.

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 large number of sibling delete tools, the description is completely inadequate for distinguishing this tool. It provides no context about the entity being deleted, the impact, or return value (no output schema). This severely limits agent selection and 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 only parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not clarify what the ID refers to or any constraints. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how to populate the parameter.

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 'Delete a record by ID', which is too generic. It does not specify which entity (e.g., 'incidente de seguridad'), despite the tool name hinting at it. This lack of specificity makes it insufficient for clear purpose identification.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other delete tools available (areas_negocio_delete, etc.). No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the tool's behavioral profile. The description adds no new behavioral context but does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details like what the response contains, which could be helpful for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It only says 'by ID', which is already obvious from the schema's required parameter. No additional meaning or format guidance is provided.

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 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action and scope. Although it is generic and doesn't differentiate from other 'get' tools for different resources, the tool name provides the resource context, making the purpose clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like incidentes_seguridad_list or incidentes_seguridad_update. There is no mention of context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it lists all records, but no additional behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundancy. Every word is functional.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, description provides minimal context. Missing details on return format, error handling, default sorting, or pagination limits.

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 coverage is 0%, and description only names parameter categories (filters, search, sort, pagination) without detailing constraints, defaults, or examples for the 6 parameters.

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 'list all records' from the 'incidentes_seguridad table', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get' which retrieves a single record, and 'create/delete/update' which write.

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 implies use for listing with optional filters/search/sort/pagination, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get for single record) or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with an update operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens if the record does not exist, whether partial updates are supported, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is not overly verbose, but it fails to provide necessary details, making it merely minimal rather than efficient.

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 that the tool performs an update with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits error handling, return values, and the structure of the 'data' parameter, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions 'by ID', explaining the id parameter. It does not describe the 'data' object parameter, leaving its structure and required fields completely unspecified.

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 'Update an existing record by ID', which clarifies the action and identifier. However, it is generic and does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling update tools (e.g., areas_negocio_update, riesgos_update), as it uses the vague term 'record' instead of specifying 'incidente de seguridad'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete). It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying it is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Create'. It does not mention side effects, validation, or error conditions. The burden is partially on annotations, but description could still add value (e.g., confirmation of creation, required permissions).

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While brevity is generally good, here it omits critical information. It is not structured or front-loaded with key details beyond the generic action. It could be considered minimal but not optimally helpful.

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 (one object parameter with no sub-schema, no output schema, no enum constraints), the description should provide more context about expected data structure and return value. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'data' of type object with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what properties the 'data' object should contain (e.g., fields for a non-conformity record). The agent receives no guidance on what to provide, making the tool nearly unusable without additional 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?

Description says 'Create a new record' without specifying that it creates a no-conformidad (non-conformity) record. Among many sibling *_create tools for different entities, this description does not differentiate the tool's purpose. The name and annotation title clarify it, but the description itself is generic.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over other create tools (e.g., areas_negocio_create or automations_create). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives.

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

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

The description aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by stating 'Delete'. However, it adds no extra details beyond what annotations already provide, such as irreversibility or side effects.

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 a single short sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the verb. It is appropriately concise, though it could slightly benefit from specifying the entity type (e.g., 'no conformidad record').

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential action and parameter. However, it omits context like permanence of deletion and potential errors, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 description includes 'by ID', which clarifies the role of the single 'id' parameter. Since the schema provides no parameter description (0% coverage), this addition is valuable and sufficient for a simple numeric ID.

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 action 'Delete' and the resource 'record by ID'. Combined with the tool name 'no_conformidades_delete', it is unambiguous and distinct from sibling delete tools for other entities.

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?

Usage is implied (delete a record when given its ID), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or soft-delete. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds no behavioral context (e.g., what happens if ID not found). No contradiction.

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?

Very concise (6 words), front-loaded, no wasted text. Could add slight detail without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return value. Says 'record' but no structure. Adequate for a simple operation, but incomplete.

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?

Only parameter is 'id' (number, required) with 0% schema coverage. Description adds no meaning beyond the name; e.g., doesn't explain format or source.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'single record', and identifier 'by ID'. Distinguishes from list and mutation tools, but doesn't specify the record type beyond the tool name.

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 when-to-use or alternatives. Implied usage for fetching a single record by ID, but lacks differentiation from other get tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the list features but doesn't disclose pagination limits, performance, or data freshness, which are relevant for a list operation.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Action and resource are front-loaded. Every word is functional.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers all key features. Missing explicit mention of return type (list of records) but it's implied. Could be slightly more comprehensive.

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%, but the description names the general categories (filters, search, sort, pagination) mapping to six parameters. However, it lacks specific semantics like filter format, sort field options, or default limit. Partial compensation.

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 action (List), the resource (no_conformidades table), and the optional capabilities (filters, search, sort, pagination). It effectively distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like create or delete.

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 implies use for listing records but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or use alternatives like get for single records. Sibling names exist but the description doesn't reference them.

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

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

Annotations are all false, so description carries the burden. It only states 'update' without detailing effects, error handling, or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. Could be slightly more descriptive without becoming verbose.

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?

Missing details about update behavior (partial vs full replace), error conditions, and return values. Without output schema or more info, the agent has minimal guidance 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds only that id identifies the record and data is the update payload. No explanation of the data object structure or valid fields, leaving the agent guessing.

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 action (update) and resource (record), but does not explicitly reference 'No Conformidades'. The tool name and title make the resource clear, so it's sufficient but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., create, delete, get). The agent must infer from context, which is insufficient.

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

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

The description merely states it creates a record, which is already implied by the name. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as validation rules, constraints, or side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent but the description adds no extra insight.

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 very concise at one sentence, but at the cost of clarity. It gets straight to the point, but some of that brevity is unhelpful because it omits critical details. It does not earn its place without adding value.

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 this is a create operation with a complex object parameter and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not specify what properties the 'data' object should contain, which is essential for correct invocation. The presence of many similar create siblings exacerbates the gap.

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 single parameter 'data' is an untyped object with 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no explanation of its structure, required fields, or expected format, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct the input.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is vague. It does not specify what kind of record (permisos ambientales) is being created, nor does it differentiate from the many other create tools on this server. The tool name provides some context, but the description itself lacks specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling create tools (e.g., areas_negocio_create, empleados_create). No context about prerequisites, required relationships, or typical scenarios is provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral insight. It does not mention permanence, cascading effects, or required permissions beyond the annotation's hint.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, but effective. Could include more context without losing brevity, such as clarifying irreversibility.

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 destructive nature and single parameter, the description is too sparse. It omits outcome details, error handling, and prerequisite checks, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only says 'by ID', which adds little beyond the parameter name 'id'. No explanation of ID uniqueness, format, or relationship to records.

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 'Delete a record by ID' clearly indicates the action and target. Although it doesn't specify the entity name, the tool name 'permisos_ambientales_delete' provides that context, effectively distinguishing it from sibling delete tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update, soft delete). The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description could be improved by specifying behavior on missing IDs or response format.

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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, CRUD operation), the description is functional but leaves out details like return values (no output schema) and behavior on errors. Annotations partially compensate, but the description is still minimal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' to indicate the parameter's role, but does not elaborate on the ID's nature or that it is the primary key. This is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 action (get) and the resource (single record by ID), which matches the tool name and is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention the domain 'permisos_ambientales', relying on the tool name for context, and is identical to other _get sibling descriptions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the list tool for retrieving multiple records, or the create/update/delete tools. No prerequisites or context for using the ID are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or empty table behavior). It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

With 6 parameters, nested objects (filters), and no output schema, the description fails to explain filter structure, search scope, pagination details, or return format. The tool is moderately complex but the description covers only the bare minimum.

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%, so the description must compensate. Only generic terms like 'filters, search, sort, and pagination' are used, without explaining parameter formats, default values, or how filters/sort_dir work. This provides minimal added value over 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the specific resource 'permisos_ambientales table', and the supported operations 'filters, search, sort, and pagination'. This distinguishes it from other list tools targeting different tables.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., permisos_ambientales_get for single records). There is no mention of optimal use cases or filtering vs search trade-offs.

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

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

The description only states 'update existing record', which implies mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or any side effects. Annotations are minimal and description adds no extra behavioral context.

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 very short at one sentence, which is concise but lacks any structure. It does not use any front-loading or hierarchical formatting. While it is not verbose, it could be equally concise while adding more value.

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 that the tool has nested objects, no output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the expected structure of the 'data' object, behavior on partial updates, error handling, or return values. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description only says 'by ID', which merely restates the 'id' parameter. The 'data' object parameter is completely unexplained. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema fields.

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 action (update) and resource (existing record by ID). The tool name includes the entity 'permisos_ambientales', so the resource is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools for other entities, which is acceptable given the naming convention.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the record needing to exist, or comparison with other tools like create or delete. The description is too generic to help in decision-making.

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

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

The description minimally states 'create', which implies a write operation. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. However, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the name suggests, such as required permissions, side effects, or data validation.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide any actionable information beyond the tool name. Better to expand with key details.

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 complexity of a create tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what type of record is created, what fields are expected, or what the response looks like, leaving an AI agent with insufficient guidance.

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 one required parameter 'data' of type object with 0% coverage (no description). The description only says 'with the provided data', adding no meaning about the structure, constraints, or expected fields of the data object. This does not compensate for the lacking schema documentation.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is a tautology that restates the 'create' action without specifying the entity type. Although the tool name 'procedimientos_iso_create' indicates ISO procedures, the description does not mention this, failing to distinguish from many sibling create tools for other entities.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling create tools for different entities (e.g., capacitaciones_create, riesgos_create). There is no context for prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond confirming deletion. It does not disclose any side effects (e.g., cascading deletes, irreversibility) or system 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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks front-loaded critical details that could be added without length.

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 absence of an output schema and the minimal description, the tool is not fully specified. Missing information includes expected return value, idempotency behavior (annotations say not idempotent), and any preconditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It merely says 'by ID', adding minimal meaning to the numeric parameter. It does not specify what ID refers to (e.g., record type, source), nor any constraints or format.

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 action (delete) and the object (record by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools which have different verbs (create, get, list, update). However, it does not specify which type of record, leaving it to the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling delete tools for different entities, the description provides no context for selection. The agent must rely solely on the tool name, which is not mentioned in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with the 'Get' action. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as what happens if the ID is not found or whether multiple IDs can be retrieved. It is consistent but lacks additional context.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the main purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more specific without becoming verbose.

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 lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description does not communicate what the tool returns (e.g., the full record details) or handle error cases like missing IDs. It is complete only for a very basic understanding but insufficient for safe autonomous use.

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 single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain it further. While 'id' is self-explanatory as an identifier, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as specifying the expected format or source of the ID.

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 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (record by ID). The tool name and annotation title specify the resource as Procedimientos ISO 9001, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling operations like list, create, delete, and update.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool requires a known ID, while procedimientos_iso_list should be used to find IDs. The description offers no context for when the tool is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it lists records, which is consistent, but provides no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and capabilities efficiently with no wasted words.

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 has 6 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too brief. It lacks details on default behavior, pagination limits, filter syntax, or return structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only states optional filters, search, sort, and pagination at a high level. It does not explain the meaning or format of individual parameters like sort, sort_dir, limit, offset, search, or the filters object.

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 lists records from the procedimientos_iso table and supports filters, search, sort, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other tables.

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 implies the tool is for listing records but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus the 'get' variant or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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