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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It states the evaluation purpose but omits behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires specific permissions, or produces a report.

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, efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could benefit from breaking into multiple sentences for readability, but as is, it is concise and adequately sized.

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 details about return value, output format, or outcomes. For a planning tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the agent receives after invocation. The current description is too minimal for an unfamiliar 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters (language and agent_definition) are described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it evaluates which parts of an agent to expose as tool, resource, or prompt, and whether UI or API/MCP is appropriate. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'evaluar_sistema' or 'evaluar_autonomia' by focusing on exposure strategy.

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 mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which sibling might be more appropriate for specific tasks.

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