challenger_decisionGenera el brief para cuestionar una decisión concreta del agente: 3 razones basadas en datos para NO hacerla. No bloquea, informa al humano.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contexto | No | Contexto y datos relevantes a la decisión. | |
| decision | Yes | La decisión o recomendación del agente que se quiere cuestionar. | |
| language | No | Idioma de la respuesta (default "es"). / Response language: pass "en" for English output. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not block but informs, and generates three reasons. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects, which would be expected for a tool without annotations. Still, the core behavior is transparent.
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 two concise sentences. The first front-loads the core purpose and output, the second adds a key behavioral constraint. 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?
Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output (3 reasons). For a simple tool with 3 parameters and low complexity, it covers the main usage. Missing details like read-only nature or output format, but adequate.
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 schema already describes all three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., clarifying formats or defaults). The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter-specific 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 clearly states that the tool generates a brief to challenge a specific agent decision with three data-driven reasons against it. It distinguishes itself by specifying it doesn't block but informs, setting it apart from siblings like 'aplicar_challenger' which likely takes action.
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 explains when to use the tool (to challenge a decision) and what it does not do ('no bloquea, informa al humano'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies a complementary tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes, but some overlap exists between auditing and reviewing tools (e.g., auditar_contexto vs. revisar_rol_y_frontera). The meta-tool recomendar_flujo might cause initial confusion but descriptions clarify its role.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in Spanish (e.g., aplicar_challenger, auditar_contexto). The naming is uniform and predictable across all 18 tools.
18 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of comprehensive agent governance. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the agent lifecycle without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from evaluation, design, auditing, contract generation, to final construction. No obvious gaps; the set is self-contained for agent governance.