get_el_buen_agenteDevuelve la guía completa 'El Buen Agente (v2)' en Markdown. Usala para contexto general; para operar sobre un agente concreto usá las tools evaluar_*/revisar_*/auditar_*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a Markdown guide. There are no side effects or hidden behaviors; the description is straightforward and honest. However, it could mention that it is a read-only operation with no side effects, but given the simplicity, a score of 4 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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and include usage guidance. No extraneous content.
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, zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It states what is returned, the format, and when to use it. No additional information is needed.
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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information. Schema coverage is 100% trivially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns 'la guía completa El Buen Agente (v2) en Markdown', specifying the verb, resource, and format. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that for specific agent operations, one should use evaluar_*/revisar_*/auditar_* 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?
Explicitly advises using this tool for general context and provides clear alternatives by naming the evaluar_*/revisar_*/auditar_* tools for concrete agent operations. This tells the agent when to use and when not to use this 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.