Vektro

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: default and maximum page sizes, the pagination loop contract, filter persistence across pages, ranking semantics (literal match, not popularity), no execution guarantee, and that external accounts are contracted separately. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs and none appear in the schema or 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?

Four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then returns, then pagination contract, then caveats. There is no filler; if anything it is dense enough that the caveat sentence could be split for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be specified, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (author, link, requirements, compatibility; guides with identifiers). Combined with pagination rules and match caveats, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including defaults, ranges and enum meanings. The description reinforces query matching semantics and pagination behavior but largely restates what the schema says (default 8, max 40, follow next_offset), so it adds little new per-parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Busca referencias de GitHub") and enumerates the filterable dimensions (texto, categoría, tipo) with the concrete kind enum values. It also distinguishes its output from sibling obtener_guia by explaining that guides carry the identifiers needed by that tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context: paginate via next_offset while has_more is true, keep filters stable across pages, and hand guide identifiers to obtener_guia. It also sets expectations (textual matching, not popularity ranking, no guaranteed execution). It stops short of stating explicit exclusions versus other siblings such as preparar_proyecto or the agente 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by clarifying the absence of side effects (no skill installation, no file download) and describing the guide's internal structure, though it says nothing about size, latency or error 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential information (what it reads, then the id rule and the non-effects). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the remaining burden on the description is small, and it covers purpose, id provenance and scope exclusions. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a meaningful constraint beyond the schema: the id must be a guide id, not a resource id. The response_format parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its full description and 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lee una guía completa') plus an enumeration of content (pasos, ejercicio, criterios de revisión, referencias atribuidas) that tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It also draws the sibling boundary by naming buscar_skills as the source of the id.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ('Usa un id de guides devuelto por buscar_skills, no el id de un recurso') and a scope exclusion ('No instala skills ni descarga archivos'). It does not say when to prefer this over preparar_proyecto or the vektro tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by bounding scope: no new planning, no external side effects, and the caller must adapt the output. It doesn't state what the response looks like, but an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, then the exclusions. Efficient; the only mild cost is the dense negative list which reads as a single run-on clause rather than scannable items.

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 an output schema and rich annotations in place, the description only needed to convey purpose, boundaries and the caller's responsibility — and it does. It even notes that both response formats include structuredContent, closing the enum's behavioral question.

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 100%, so goal, guide_id and response_format are already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description corroborates that guide + goal together form the input but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (reúne) and the two inputs it combines (guía + objetivo), then enumerates the artifacts produced: requisitos, pasos, ejercicio, referencias y reglas de trabajo. An agent can distinguish it from buscar_skills/obtener_guia, which retrieve guides rather than assemble a starting point. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so no explicit 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?

The second sentence gives clear negative guidance — it does not generate a new plan, install, publish, or call external services — which prevents an agent from over-expecting. It also tells the assistant to adapt the returned steps to the goal. Missing an explicit ordering hint (e.g. 'call after obtener_guia to get guide_id').

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 and closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: exactly four agents are returned, the shape of each entry, and the important boundary that Vektro does not connect accounts or run background tasks. It does not discuss pagination or freshness of the list, but for a small fixed catalog that is minor.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: what it lists, what it returns, then the operational boundary. Each sentence carries information, though the final clause about background execution is slightly tangential to the listing action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, and the description nonetheless names the fields. For a zero-required-parameter read tool the coverage is solid; the only real gap is routing guidance relative to the sibling tools, which the description omits.

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 one parameter (response_format, enum json/markdown) and schema description coverage is 100%, including the note that both formats carry structuredContent. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista los cuatro agentes disponibles') and even enumerates the four agent types plus the returned fields (id, objetivo, entregables, petición de ejemplo). An agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like buscar_skills or obtener_guia, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for choosing an agent, but the description never says when to call this vs. buscar_skills, obtener_guia or vektro_preparar_agente, nor whether it should be called before preparar_proyecto. The sentence about the client assistant executing procedures clarifies scope, not call 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 already declare readOnlyHint and idempotency, but the description adds real value: it specifies that the read installs no connectors and calls no providers, warns that declared connections are 'declaraciones, no verificaciones', and adds an approval safeguard before publishing, spending or activating flows. These caveats go beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by procedure and then safety caveats, with no filler. The semicolon-heavy chain is dense but every clause carries information; it could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage and annotations covering safety, the major remaining gap is routing: the description never explains when this tool is preferred over obtener_guia, preparar_proyecto or buscar_skills. The behavioral caveats are adequate, but sibling disambiguation is missing for a tool whose purpose overlaps with several siblings.

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 100% and the schema descriptions already carry the caveats about client and available_connections not proving compatibility. The description's note that connections are declarations, not verifications, reinforces but does not materially extend the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 says it retrieves a procedure, deliverables and a guided connection for the client's assistant, which is a real verb+resource. However, the phrasing is abstract and it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like obtener_guia or preparar_proyecto, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of them applies.

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 gives an internal execution order ('Seguir primero connection_setup...'), but that is guidance on what to do after calling, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. No condition, prerequisite, or sibling exclusion is stated.

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