runik-ai

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

The description discloses creation behavior but adds no extra context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only or destructive. No mention of side effects, auth needs, 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 concise (one sentence) but overly sparse. It lacks structure and essential information, making it not earn its place as it provides minimal 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?

Despite low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description fails to specify input requirements, expected behavior, or return values. Incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'data' parameter structure or valid fields. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type.

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 (areas_negocio), relying on the tool name for context. It restates the obvious function without distinguishing from 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like areas_negocio_update or siblings from different entities. Missing context about 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?

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation destructiveHint: true. It does not disclose consequences like cascading deletes or irreversibility.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with action. 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 simple delete with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about the entity or consequences.

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 does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond 'by ID'. However, the single parameter is simple and type is clear from schema. The description adds minimal 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 'Delete a record by ID' states the verb and resource but is generic. It does not specify what type of record (Áreas de Negocio), which is important given multiple sibling delete tools for different 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 on when to use this tool versus other delete tools. 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the generic 'get record', such as error handling 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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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 lack of output schema and the generic description, the agent has insufficient context to understand what the tool returns or how to handle failures. Annotations provide safety signals, but the description does not fill 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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter. The meaning of 'id' is left entirely to the agent to infer from the schema type.

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 'Get a single record by ID', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific record. However, it does not specify the entity type, relying on the tool name, and fails to differentiate from siblings like '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 like 'areas_negocio_list'. The description does not mention prerequisites 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds little beyond stating optional parameters; no mention of pagination behavior or rate limits. With good annotations, a 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. While concise, it could be slightly more structured to list parameters clearly.

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; description omits whether results are paginated with total count or return format. Given high tool complexity (6 params) and no output documentation, the description is 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% and description only lists parameter families (filters, search, sort, pagination) without explaining expected formats or enum values (e.g., sort_dir). The description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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) and resource (areas_negocio table) with supported capabilities (filters, search, sort, pagination). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like areas_negocio_create or areas_negocio_get.

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., vs areas_negocio_get for single record). No mentions of prerequisites or contexts where list is preferred over search/filtering.

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-readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral details (e.g., whether updates are partial, whether it returns the updated record, or side effects). It merely restates the action 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 brief (one sentence), which is concise, but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded but under-specified.

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 minimal annotations, the description fails to convey essential information about the tool's behavior, parameters, or return value. It is insufficient 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%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'id' and 'data' parameters. It does not clarify expected fields in 'data' or format constraints, forcing the agent to infer from 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?

The description 'Update an existing record by ID' clearly states the action (update) and target (record by ID). Although it doesn't specify 'areas_negocio', the tool name provides context, distinguishing it from other tool families.

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, get, or list. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for 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 provide basic flags (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) but the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create'. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or response 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 a single generic sentence that wastes opportunity to front-load key information. It is under-specified rather than concisely 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 high number of sibling create tools, the lack of output schema, and the opaque 'data' parameter, the description fails to provide enough context 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?

The single parameter 'data' is an object with no schema description (0% coverage). The phrase 'with the provided data' adds no insight into required fields, 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 says 'Create a new record' but does not specify which entity (Auditorías de Sustentabilidad) or distinguish from the many sibling create tools. 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 alternatives like 'auditorias_sustentabilidad_update' or other create tools, nor any prerequisites 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 provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects, 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?

One concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Perfectly 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?

For a simple delete with one param and destructiveHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that deletion is permanent, but the annotation covers that.

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 (id). The description says 'by ID', which adds basic semantics, but doesn't clarify the ID type or format 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 says 'Delete a record by ID', which is a specific verb (Delete) and resource (record). The resource is implied by the tool name, but the description doesn't explicitly state it, limiting clarity.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., update, list). The description doesn't mention any context or prerequisites.

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 annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description contributes no additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, response format). With annotations provided, the bar is lower; this score reflects that 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 a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be more effective by including the entity name or result context. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 many sibling *_get tools for different entities, the description fails to specify which resource is being retrieved (Auditorías de Sustentabilidad). The agent may confuse this with other get tools. The title annotation provides this, but the description itself lacks it.

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% coverage (no parameter descriptions) and the description adds minimal semantics by stating 'by ID' but does not clarify the nature of the ID (e.g., integer identifier). The agent is left relying on the parameter name only.

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', specifying the verb (get), resource (single record), and method (by ID). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like list or create, though it lacks the entity name 'Auditorías de Sustentabilidad' which is present in the title annotation but not the description itself.

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 list or search. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that the tool lists records with optional filters, search, sort, pagination, which aligns with annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data volume limits or performance characteristics.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose ('List all records') followed by optional capabilities. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the description does not hint at return format or pagination details. Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects in filters) and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to compensate for missing parameter documentation or output 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 coverage is 0%; no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' but does not detail each parameter's meaning, constraints, or examples. For 6 parameters, this is insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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 all records from a specific table with optional filters, search, sort, and pagination. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'auditorias_sustentabilidad table', distinguishing it from create, get, update, delete siblings for the same entity.

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 records with optional features, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like auditorias_sustentabilidad_get for single records. No exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving inference to the agent.

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, which are consistent with an update operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether it's a partial or full replacement, or what happens if the ID is missing.

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 of six words, front-loading the key action. However, it is minimal and could benefit from slightly 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?

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a generic description, the tool definition is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of 'data', the update behavior, or any constraints, making it difficult 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 0% coverage on property descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID' but does not explain the 'id' or 'data' parameters. The 'data' object is completely undefined, leaving the agent without needed 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?

The description 'Update an existing record by ID' clearly indicates an update operation on a record, but does not explicitly mention the resource type 'auditorías_sustentabilidad', relying on the tool name for context. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings but 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or get. The description does not specify usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'create'. No side effects, error conditions, or lifecycle information is 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail 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 complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, behavior on conflict, or how to configure the automation properly.

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 but only vaguely hints at the structure via 'source → process → destination'. It does not explain the 10 parameters, their configs, or how they relate to the automation creation.

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 Pilo automation (source → process → destination)' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, and the structure hint distinguishes it from other automation tools like update, delete, etc.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, related tools, or situations where other tools like automations_update might be more 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 annotation destructiveHint: true already indicates destruction, and the description aligns. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides, such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or authorization needs.

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, concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by including the required parameter without significant bloat.

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 input schema documentation, the description should provide more context. It fails to mention what happens after deletion, error conditions, or how to identify the automation. The tool has many siblings, yet the description offers no distinguishing 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for its single parameter 'id'. The description does not explain what 'id' represents or its usage, leaving the agent to infer it is the automation's ID. This is insufficient for proper invocation.

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 ('automation'), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling automation tools like automations_run or automations_log, though the action itself distinguishes it.

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, context, or situations where this tool is appropriate compared to other automation 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, conveying safety. The description 'Get details' aligns but does not add additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements 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, succinct sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy or extraneous 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?

Without an output schema, the description should specify the return format or scope of 'details'. It omits crucial information about the response, leaving the agent uncertain about what data will be returned.

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 'id' (number) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what the id represents (e.g., automation ID), leaving ambiguity about its meaning and usage.

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 details of an automation', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'automation details'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like automations_create, automations_delete, automations_list, and automations_update by indicating it is a read operation.

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 compared to alternatives like automations_list (which lists automations) or automations_run. The description lacks context for optimal 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination or sorting 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?

A single, direct sentence with no extraneous 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 no output schema, the description does not hint at the return format (e.g., list of automation objects with specific fields). For a simple list tool, it is basic but could be slightly more informative.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so the description has no burden to explain them. The description adds value by clarifying that it lists all automations, which is sufficient.

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' and the resource 'automations', with the scope 'all'. This distinguishes it from other automations tools like get (single) and log (logs).

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 does not mention when not to use it or compare with automations_get, automations_log, or other listing 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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.

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, using a single phrase to convey the core function. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter context 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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on parameter usage and expected output format.

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%, and the description does not mention the parameters 'id' and 'limit' or explain their purpose. This leaves the agent to infer their meaning, which adds minimal 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 specifies the verb 'View' and the resource 'execution history of an automation', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like automations_list (list automations) and automations_get (get single automation). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

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 viewing history without modification, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any 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?

The description adds that execution is 'preview by default', which hints at dry_run behavior beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose actual execution side effects, or the difference between preview and real run. Annotations already set destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description could elaborate on what changes occur.

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 with no redundant words. The key info (execute, automation, preview default) is 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?

For a tool that likely triggers a side effect, the description fails to explain what 'execute' entails, return values, error handling, or prerequisites. With no output schema, this 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly refers to dry_run via 'preview'. It does not explain the required 'id' parameter or how to use the dry_run boolean. Meaning added is minimal.

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 'execute an automation' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'preview by default' distinguishes it from related CRUD and log tools. It is 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 this tool versus siblings like automations_get, automations_log, or automations_update. The description doesn't include selection criteria 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 the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain that updating overwrites existing values, whether fields are optional or required, or any side effects like triggering automation runs.

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 lacks sufficient detail. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but it does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the data structure, making it difficult 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what parameters like 'frequency', 'dest_config', or 'source_config' mean, leaving the agent without clarity on how to use them.

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 automation' clearly states the action (verb) and resource (noun), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, etc. However, it is minimal and lacks any additional context that would make it more informative.

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., when to update rather than create or delete). There is no mention of prerequisites, idempotency, or effect of partial updates.

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 adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious create action. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), and the description does not clarify requirements, side effects, or response 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?

Extremely short but under-specified; lacks essential details. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits 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?

No output schema, no parameter details, no behavioral hints. For a create tool, information on return value, success conditions, and data constraints is missing.

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 undocumented object. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving its structure and required fields unknown.

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 the type of record (capacitaciones). It fails to distinguish from many sibling 'create' tools like empleados_create, riesgos_create, etc.

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. With many similar create tools, the description provides no 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 already provide destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Delete' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions). This is adequate but minimal.

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 short sentence) and front-loaded. It is not verbose, but could be slightly improved by specifying the resource name. Overall, it efficiently conveys the core 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?

Given no output schema and a single required parameter, the description omits crucial details such as return value, error handling, or success confirmation. Although destructiveHint is present, the description should provide more context 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by ID' but adds no further meaning about the ID's role or format beyond what the schema reveals. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a record by ID', with a specific verb and resource. The tool name 'capacitaciones_delete' further clarifies the context, distinguishing it from many sibling delete tools. However, it could explicitly mention the resource type (capacitaciones) 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools or an undo function). No prerequisites, constraints, or error conditions are mentioned, 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Get' is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it returns full object, handles missing IDs). It neither contradicts nor enriches 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 concise at one sentence, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is perhaps too minimal for a tool with no output schema and low parameter description coverage.

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 provides basic completeness by stating it gets a record by ID. It does not detail the return value, error handling, or entity specificity. With many sibling get tools, a more descriptive phrase 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'id' (number). The description only says 'by ID', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify the ID's purpose or expected format, 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 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource type (record), and the identification method (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list or create by implying a single record retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name the entity (capacitaciones), relying on 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., capacitaciones_list for multiple records). There is no mention of prerequisites or constraints. Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description itself lacks 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 already indicate this is read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive. The description adds that it supports filters, search, sort, and pagination, but these are implied by the schema. 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., list of records). It does not. Annotations are good, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters into 'filters, search, sort, and pagination', giving high-level semantics for all 6 params. However, it does not detail each parameter individually.

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 resource 'capacitaciones table', and mentions optional features like filters, search, sort, and pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like capacitaciones_get (single record) and capacitaciones_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?

The description implies usage for listing records with filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., capacitaciones_get for a single record) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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' but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or success/failure behavior; annotations provide minimal 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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks necessary structure; does not separate parameter details or usage context.

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 many sibling update tools and absence of output schema, the description is too sparse to support correct tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%; description does not explain 'id' or 'data' parameters, leaving agent with no clues about their meaning 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Update' and resource 'existing record by ID', distinguishing from sibling create and get 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 capacitaciones_create or capacitaciones_update for other entities.

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 mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds no further behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse given the complexity of the tool.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, there is no output schema, and the tool has a nested object parameter, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not inform the agent about what the record represents, 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 input schema has a single 'data' object parameter with 0% description coverage. The description merely says 'the provided data,' offering no structure, required fields, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states 'Create a new record,' which is vague regarding the specific resource. The tool name 'certificaciones_empleados_create' implies employee certifications, but the description itself lacks specificity. It does distinguish from siblings (other create tools) by referencing 'record' generically.

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 other create endpoints. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, 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 provide destructiveHint=true, indicating deletion. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., permanence, cascading 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 concise (one sentence), but it is generic. It could be front-loaded with the resource name for clarity.

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 annotations indicating destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits specifying that it deletes 'certificaciones_empleados' records, relying on the tool name.

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 self-explanatory from the schema, but the description does not add meaning beyond 'by ID'. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter is simple enough that the description adds little 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 the action (delete) and the resource (a record by ID), but it is generic and does not differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., areas_negocio_delete). The resource specificity is only in 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, such as other delete tools or non-delete operations. The description simply states what it does 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what happens if ID not found). It neither contradicts nor substantially enriches 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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. 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?

Minimal but adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool given annotations. Lacks explanation of return value structure, error handling, and scope (e.g., is it the global ID or scoped?). Considering no output schema, more detail would help.

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 clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the record identifier. However, it does not specify constraints like type format (e.g., positive integer) or range.

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 a retrieval operation. Combined with the tool name 'certificaciones_empleados_get', it specifies the entity type. It distinguishes from list, create, update, and delete 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 versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list instead). Does not specify prerequisites or error 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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it performs a list operation with filtering and sorting, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, data freshness, or pagination defaults. It 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 front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits details like default sort order, pagination limits, or response format. It is adequate for a simple list tool but not 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming the parameter categories (filters, search, sort, pagination). However, it lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., structure of filters object, search syntax). The baseline is 3 due to low coverage and minimal extra 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all records from the certificaciones_empleados table, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and delete. The verb 'List' and resource 'certificaciones_empleados table' are specific.

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 via 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., the get tool for a single record). No when-not or alternative guidance 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, what fields are modifiable, or if the update is irreversible. 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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief to be useful, lacking structure and detail. It fits on one line but sacrifices completeness 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 nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected structure of 'data', the response format, error conditions, or any constraints. The agent needs more context to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'by ID' for the id parameter, but says nothing about the data parameter, which is an object with unspecified structure. The agent gets no insight into 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 action (update) and target (record by ID), but lacks specificity about what kind of record (certificaciones de empleados), which is conveyed only by the tool name. Among sibling update tools, it is distinguishable by name but not by 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or list, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., record must exist). The description does not mention 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 already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Create'—no mention of side effects, authorization, or constraints.

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 clarity. It is front-loaded 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?

The description is woefully incomplete given the complexity of the data parameter (nested object) and the lack of output schema. It does not help the agent understand required input 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 description merely echoes the parameter name 'data' without providing any details about its structure, required fields, or format. With 0% schema description 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?

The description states 'Create a new record', which is generic and does not specify the resource type (controles_internos). It fails to distinguish this tool from many other '_create' siblings, and the specificity comes only from the annotation title, not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other create tools or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, 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?

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true, signaling a mutation. The description confirms deletion but adds no further behavioral details (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions). The description does not add significant value 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 very short at 5 words, which makes it front-loaded but also overly terse. While it avoids fluff, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity (e.g., specifying the resource type). It is acceptable but not optimal.

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-by-ID operation, the description might suffice, but it lacks context about what happens after deletion (e.g., return value, error handling) and does not explicitly link to the 'controles internos' resource. Given the complexity is low, it is minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 needed to explain the 'id' parameter. It only says 'by ID', which is redundant with the schema. No guidance on the ID's format, source, or scope is given. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Delete a record by ID' clearly indicates a destructive operation on a record, and the tool name 'controles_internos_delete' specifies the resource type. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'controles_internos_get' and 'controles_internos_update'. However, it does not explicitly restate the resource name, which would add clarity.

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 over alternatives, such as when to delete vs. deactivate, or any prerequisites like needing permissions or ensuring the record exists. It merely states the action, leaving the agent without 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description does not contradict these and aligns by stating 'Get', but it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. 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 communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant words. Every word is meaningful, and it respects conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 robust annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description is minimally complete. It explains the basic operation but omits details about the return format, possible errors (e.g., ID not found), or pagination. Given the low complexity, the description suffices but could be richer.

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 'id' of type number with no description. The tool description says 'by ID', which implies that the parameter is the identifier for the record. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail (e.g., what the ID represents). It adds minimal but necessary 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?

The description 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (a single record), differentiating it from sibling tools like list, create, update, delete which operate on collections or perform other actions. It is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify that this tool is appropriate when you have a specific ID and need the full record, nor does it contrast with list or search 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns all records with optional filtering, but no additional behavioral context like rate limits or side effects is provided. Acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

A single concise sentence covers the core functionality with no redundancy. Front-loaded with action and resource, then lists optional features efficiently.

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, yet the description omits return value details. Pagination behavior (default limit, max limit) and filter/search syntax are not explained. For a list tool with nested objects, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fill the gap. It only names the parameter categories (filters, search, sort, pagination) without explaining syntax, format, or defaults. Parameters like 'filters' and 'search' are left ambiguous, requiring further inference.

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 operation (list), the resource (controles_internos table), and the supported features (filters, search, sort, pagination). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get, create, delete, 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied for listing records, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions. It meets the minimum but lacks proactive 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?

The description only says 'Update' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, permissions) are disclosed beyond what annotations already provide. With annotations present, the bar is lower but the description adds no 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 at one sentence, but it is under-specified. While front-loaded, it omits critical information, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more descriptive version.

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 (two parameters, one of which is an opaque object), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the data parameter's structure, return value, or constraints, 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' implicitly via 'by ID', but the key 'data' parameter is left completely unexplained. The agent cannot understand what data to provide for the update.

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('record by ID'), which is clear. However, it does not specify that it applies to 'Controles Internos' records, failing to differentiate from sibling update 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 alternatives like create, delete, or other update tools. The agent receives no context for tool 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 provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating mutation but not destruction. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create', such as side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. With minimal annotation coverage, the description fails to inform the agent of important traits.

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 overly terse. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it minimally acceptable as a 'just the facts' statement.

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 complex nested input (object), no output schema, and 8 sibling create tools, the description is far from complete. It provides no information about expected data structure, return value, or relation to other tools, 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 single parameter 'data' is an object with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds zero semantic value. Without any elaboration, the agent cannot infer what keys or structure the 'data' object requires.

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 what kind of record or the domain (controles SBIF/CMF). It is not a tautology but lacks specificity, barely distinguishing from other create tools. The title in annotations provides some context but the description itself 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 alternatives like other create tools (e.g., areas_negocio_create). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, 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 repeats the destructive hint already provided by annotations (destructiveHint=true). No additional behavioral context is given, such as effects on related data 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 very concise (one sentence) but under-specified. It lacks critical details that would help the agent use the tool correctly, making it too brief without being 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 presence of many sibling delete tools and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection and parameter 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, just 'by 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' clearly states the action and target, using a verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., areas_negocio_delete), missing the specific resource type.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling delete tools, the description offers no 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the behavioral profile is clear. The description adds minimal context (retrieval by ID) but does not disclose error behavior or response details. With annotations present, a score of 3 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 very concise (5 words) with no wasted text. However, it could benefit from slightly more context, such as stating that it returns the full record details, without significantly increasing length. Still, conciseness is high.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of annotations, the description lacks context about the entity (e.g., 'Controles SBIF/CMF record'). It does not mention the return value format or error handling. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond the type. The description implies the parameter is the identifier but adds no additional meaning (e.g., what the ID represents or its format). This is insufficient for compensating the low coverage.

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', specifying the action (get), resource (single record), and method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list (which retrieves multiple records) and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer this over list or other retrieval methods. No exclusions or context are given.

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, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds value by disclosing optional filtering, searching, sorting, and pagination capabilities, which are beyond what annotations provide. 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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It covers key optional features without fluff. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet list of parameters) to improve scannability.

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 richness of the input schema (6 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. An agent needs to know the expected format for filters, search syntax, and the structure of returned data. The description only provides high-level hints, leaving many unknowns.

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 carries the burden of explaining six parameters. It only loosely maps to 'filters', 'search', 'sort', and 'pagination' but lacks detail on format, allowed values, or how the nested 'filters' object should be structured. The 'sort_dir' enum is not mentioned. Significant gaps remain.

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' and the specific resource 'controles_sbif table', distinguishing it from sibling CRUD tools (e.g., create, get, delete, update). The annotation title 'List Controles SBIF/CMF' reinforces this. The phrase 'all records' is slightly mitigated by the mention of pagination.

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 records with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like controles_sbif_get for single record retrieval. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information 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?

The description adds minimal behavioral info beyond the annotations. It confirms mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) but does not disclose potential side effects, field overwrite behavior, or any constraints. No additional context beyond the trivial 'update' action.

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, but it lacks substance. While brevity is valued, the content is too sparse to adequately inform the agent, reducing its effectiveness.

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 (two parameters, a nested object, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to specify required fields in 'data', accepted formats, or return value, leaving critical 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'by ID' without detailing the 'data' object or that 'id' is a number. The nested object is completely undocumented, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for the most complex 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 the action ('update') and the resource ('record by ID'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create', 'delete', 'get', and 'list'. However, it does not explicitly mention 'Controles SBIF/CMF', relying on the tool name and annotation title for 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create' or 'get'). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or explicit 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 are sparse (no readOnly, idempotent, or destructive hints are true; they are all false). The description simply states 'create' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate keys, or any side effects. With low annotation coverage, the description should provide more 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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks substance. It is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing useful information beyond the tool name. True conciseness should include key details without verbosity.

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 (one required parameter of type object, no output schema, no parameter description), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, required fields within 'data', constraints, or any error conditions. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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 or in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameter. The agent cannot infer what fields are expected or how to structure the data.

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 could apply to any create tool. While the tool name 'empleados_create' specifies employees, the description itself does not mention employees or distinguish it from sibling create tools like 'areas_negocio_create'. Thus, purpose is only moderately 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many similar create tools (e.g., 'areas_negocio_create', 'capacitaciones_create'), but the description does not provide any context for selection. No prerequisites or exclusions 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 destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool is destructive. The description merely says 'Delete', which aligns with the annotation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversible deletion, cascading effects, or authorization needs). Since the annotation covers the destructive nature, the description is adequate but not improved beyond the structured data.

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: a single phrase with no extraneous words. It gets straight to the point. While it could include more detail, it is efficient and front-loaded with no fluff. The brevity is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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 and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does and what parameter to use. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, deleted record) or any side effects (e.g., cascading deletes). It is minimally complete but leaves some 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'id' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description mentions 'by ID', which clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the identifier to use. This adds some meaning, but it is very minimal and could specify the type or format (e.g., integer). It meets the baseline for a simple tool but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (a record by ID). The tool name 'empleados_delete' reinforces that it's specific to employees, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools on the server, but since all delete tools target different resources, the purpose is sufficiently 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, when to prefer this tool over other delete operations, or when not to use it. The lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction beyond the basic action.

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, fully informing the agent this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get by ID', missing details like error handling or return 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could incorporate additional useful details (e.g., confirmation of resource type) 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 get-by-ID tool with robust annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention return value (the record) or behavior when ID is not found, but the simplicity moderates the need. No output schema is present.

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' is described only as 'by ID', which adds little beyond the schema's required/number type. Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description fails to clarify the field's purpose (e.g., 'unique employee identifier').

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 'Get a single record by ID', which is clear and distinguishes from list/create/update/delete siblings. However, it does not specify the resource type (empleados), relying on the tool name and annotation title for 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. Usage is implied (when you need a specific record by ID), but no guidance for edge cases or when not to use (e.g., if multiple records needed, use list). Simplicity reduces need, but still missing.

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 such as return format, performance characteristics, or default behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not enhance them.

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 with no extraneous words. Every part ('List all records', 'empleados table', 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination') adds value. It is optimally concise.

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, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It omits details on default pagination, filter syntax, search scope, and the structure of the returned data, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only generically mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without explaining parameter formats (e.g., how filters object is structured, what search searches across, default sort direction). This is insufficient for a tool with 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'empleados table', and mentions all optional features (filters, search, sort, pagination). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like empleados_get (single record) and empleados_create (write), as well as from other list endpoints by specifying the table 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 implies use for retrieving multiple records from the empleados table but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like empleados_get for single records. No comparison with other list tools is provided, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as what happens if the ID does not exist or if the update is partial.

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), but it lacks necessary details. It is not verbose, but under-specification hurts usability.

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 a complex nested object parameter and no output schema. The description fails to explain how to use the data object or what the response looks like, leaving 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'by ID', providing no insight into the 'data' parameter format, allowed fields, 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 clearly states that the tool updates an existing record by ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, 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 states it creates a record but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond creation. Annotations provide minimal context (non-readOnly, non-destructive). No mention of side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to existing data.

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?

While the description is short, it is underspecified rather than concise. It does not earn its place as it provides no useful information beyond the name.

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 complex object parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns or what constitutes valid input data.

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' has a type of 'object' but no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description merely says 'with the provided data,' adding no semantic meaning about required fields, format, or expected 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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is generic. It does not specify that the record is for security incidents (as indicated by the tool name and annotation title). It fails to distinguish this tool from the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or 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 already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral disclosure. It does not mention prerequisites, cascading effects, or irreversibility beyond what annotations signal.

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 extra words, but it is too minimal to be effective. Conciseness is not an asset when content is insufficient.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description fails to name the entity type or provide any context beyond the obvious. With many sibling tools, completeness is inadequate.

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. The description only says 'by ID', which is redundant given the schema's required 'id' field. No additional meaning or format details are 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 'Delete a record by ID' indicates a delete operation but does not specify the resource type. While the tool name 'incidentes_seguridad_delete' suggests it deletes security incidents, the description is vague and does not distinguish it from many 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling delete tools, the agent 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, implying safe retrieval. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., pagination or error handling). It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond the structured data.

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 focused sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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 describe the return value structure or behavior. For a simple get-by-id tool, this may be acceptable, but the agent lacks information about what fields to expect in the response.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0% with only one parameter (id). The description mentions 'by ID' but provides no additional meaning, type constraints, or usage hints beyond the schema itself. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states the action (get) and resource (record by ID), but does not explicitly name the record type. However, the tool name 'incidentes_seguridad_get' effectively disambiguates it from sibling tools, 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 siblings like incidentes_seguridad_list or incidentes_seguridad_update. It simply states the operation without context on 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds value by specifying supported operations (filters, search, sort, pagination), which goes beyond annotations and informs usage.

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 action ('List all records...') and follows with capabilities. It is concise with no wasted words, but could be slightly restructured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, though not required.

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, so the description should compensate by explaining the return format, default pagination, or limits. It does not mention these, leaving the agent unaware of response structure. Given the complexity (6 params, nested objects), the description is insufficiently 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 6 parameters but 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no explanatory text. The description only mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without explaining their structure or allowed values. For example, 'filters' as an object is unclear, and 'sort' is not detailed. This adds minimal semantic 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 explicitly states the tool lists all records from the 'incidentes_seguridad' table with optional filters, search, sort, and pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like incidentes_seguridad_get, which presumably returns 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs. get, or vs. other list tools). It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). 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 sentence is concise and front-loaded, but lacks necessary detail; borderline too minimal.

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 vague parameter description make the tool insufficiently documented for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and description does not explain what the 'data' object parameter contains, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 'Update' and resource 'record by ID', but description does not explicitly mention 'security incidents' from the tool name, though it's implied. Distinguishes from CRUD 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 vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates 'create' and adds no additional behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, or response 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 very short and front-loaded, but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It is not well-structured and lacks any detail that would aid understanding.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and a complex nested parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the creation entails, what the record looks like, or expected outcomes.

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% for the single required 'data' parameter. The description only says 'with the provided data', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to describe expected properties, format, or constraints for the data 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 states 'Create a new record with the provided data', which indicates the action but does not specify the entity being created (e.g., 'No Conformidad'). The tool name and annotation title provide context, but the description alone is vague and does not 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description offers no context for selection among related create 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?

The description aligns with the annotation destructiveHint=true, confirming the destructive nature. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as cascading effects, irreversibility, or permissions. The annotation already covers the safety profile adequately.

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, concise and without redundant words. However, it could include the entity name for clarity without sacrificing 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?

The description lacks details about the return value (e.g., confirmation message), error handling (e.g., what if ID not found), and side effects. For a delete operation with no output schema, more context is needed for safe 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The only parameter 'id' is simply a number as per the schema; the description adds no further meaning about its format, range, 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?

The description 'Delete a record by ID' clearly states the action and resource, but it does not specify that it deletes a no_conformidad record specifically, though the tool name provides that context. It is distinguishable from sibling delete tools due to the unique 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other delete operations.

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 (e.g., what happens on missing ID, response details).

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 wasted words. 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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description omits information about return value, error handling, and any special behavior, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% for parameters, so description should compensate. It vaguely mentions 'by ID' but does not describe the id parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond the schema's type declaration.

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' is generic but combined with the tool name 'no_conformidades_get' it identifies the resource. It lacks explicit differentiation from other get tools, though the sibling names distinguish them.

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. The usage is implied by the name and type but no explicit context or 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 already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral depth beyond confirming it lists records. The description does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or potential performance implications.

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 promptly states the core purpose and lists key features. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured or include bullet points 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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, including nested objects) and no output schema, the description omits details about return format, error handling, pagination limits, and default behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only broadly mentions 'filters, search, sort, pagination' without adding meaning to individual parameters (e.g., the format of the filters object, accepted sort values). This falls short of compensating for the lack of schema 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 clearly states it lists records from a specific table (no_conformidades) and highlights optional capabilities (filters, search, sort, pagination), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform create, delete, get, or update 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like no_conformidades_get (which retrieves a single record). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where other list tools would be more 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 indicate the tool is not readonly (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false), but the description adds no behavioral details such as whether the update is partial or full, or what happens if the ID is not found.

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 lacks substance and does not earn its place by providing helpful information beyond the tool name.

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 two parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify update behavior, required fields, or error handling, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. It fails to clarify that 'id' is the record identifier or what the 'data' 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 states 'Update an existing record by ID', which is clear but generic. It relies on the tool name for specificity and does not distinguish this update tool from numerous sibling update 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 alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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 and not destructive, but description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'. No mention of permissions, side effects, or limitations.

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 fails to convey essential information. Conciseness here is detrimental.

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?

Completely inadequate for a complex tool with one required object parameter and no output schema. No info on return values, error cases, or data 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?

The only parameter 'data' is an object with no description in schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain what fields it expects, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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' restates the tool name without specifying what kind of record (permisos ambientales). It does not differentiate from other create tools like areas_negocio_create or empleados_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 other create tools. No context on prerequisites 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 adds nothing beyond the annotations. Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, and the description simply says 'delete'. No additional behavioral insights (e.g., reversibility, cascading effects) are 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too vague. While it front-loads the action, it lacks structure and details that would make it 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?

For a simple delete operation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the record type, ID format, or expected outcome. The lack of an output schema further reduces 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. It fails to explain what the ID represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary 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?

The description clearly states the action 'delete' and the resource 'record by ID'. While it lacks specificity about the record type (permisos ambientales), the tool name implies it. It is clear enough for a simple delete operation, but could be improved by explicitly naming 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 other delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the action.

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 the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions). 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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits important context, but it earns its place without waste.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not mention the resource type (permisos ambientales) or return format. Relies heavily on the tool name and schema.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter beyond the schema. It provides no semantics such as what the ID represents or expected 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 (Get) and the object (single record by ID), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like areas_negocio_get, which likely have identical descriptions. The name itself helps, but the description 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list for multiple records). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for using this tool.

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, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description does not add any extra behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as authorization requirements or side effects, but the annotations suffice for basic 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, which is concise. However, it is very generic and does not earn its place by adding specific, useful details. It could be more informative without becoming overly long, especially by clarifying key parameters.

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 there is no output schema and the input schema has no parameter descriptions, the tool description should provide more context about the return format, how to construct filters, and the behavior of search and sorting. It fails to fill these gaps, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only generically mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without explaining each parameter's purpose, allowed values, or syntax. The 'filters' parameter is an object with no details, and search, sort, sort_dir are not elaborated. This is insufficient given the lack of schema 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'permisos_ambientales table', and mentions optional capabilities like filters, search, sort, and pagination. It distinguishes the tool as a list operation for a specific table, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools with similar parameter structures.

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 records from the table with optional parameters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools with similar names) or when to use specific filters vs search. No exclusions or alternative tools 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?

The description only says 'Update', which implies modification, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what fields can be updated, or any side effects. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) but no further details. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It covers the essential action but sacrifices completeness for brevity. A slightly longer description with key details would be more effective.

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 minimal annotations, the description should compensate by explaining behavior and return value. It does not mention what the tool returns after update, or any constraints (e.g., idempotency). The description is incomplete for a write 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 two parameters (id and data) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by ID' but does not explain the 'data' parameter's structure or required fields. The agent must infer that 'data' contains the fields to update, but no details are provided, making this a significant gap.

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 action (update) and the resource (record), and the tool name specifies the entity 'permisos_ambientales'. However, it omits the entity name from the description, relying on the tool name alone, which is adequate but 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other update tools for different entities, or the create/delete tools). No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it is given.

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 no behavioral details (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or constraints, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 short and to the point, but it is too terse, sacrificing essential information. It is minimally acceptable in conciseness but lacks structure.

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 (create operation with one opaque parameter, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify what record is created, what the data should contain, or what the result will be.

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 opaque object with 0% schema coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond 'with the provided data', failing to explain what properties or format are expected.

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 'Create a new record with the provided data' is generic and merely restates the tool name, lacking specificity about the type of record (procedimientos ISO 9001). It does not differentiate 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 alternatives. With many other _create tools, the description should specify the context or prerequisites, but it does not.

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 and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' adds no new behavioral context. It misses clarifying irreversible effects, cascading deletions, or permission requirements 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?

Very concise (one sentence), but extremely under-specified. While brevity is good, the description lacks substantive information that would help the agent, making it minimally adequate.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least mention what the tool returns or any side effects. The current text is too brief to be complete, even given the low complexity.

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 for the required 'id' parameter, the description should clarify what ID represents (e.g., the record's unique identifier). The current description provides no additional meaning beyond the name.

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 'Delete a record by ID' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not mention the entity name 'procedimientos_iso', relying on the tool name for differentiation. Could be more precise for disambiguation among 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 other delete tools, prerequisites, or post-delete effects. The agent must 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get', such as what happens if the ID does not exist (error or null), authorization requirements, or whether the result is paginated.

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, which is appropriate for a simple get operation. However, it lacks structure such as a note on non-existence or response format.

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 straightforward get-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but omits details like return format (single object or null) and error behavior. The presence of an output schema would have improved 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'id' of type number, but the description provides no additional meaning (e.g., format, range, or relationship to other entities). With 0% schema description 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?

The description 'Get a single record by ID' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (a single record). The tool name adds the specific context of 'procedimientos_iso', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it is generic and does not explicitly differentiate from other _get tools like 'areas_negocio_get'.

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 'procedimientos_iso_list' for multiple records. The description does not mention prerequisites, filters, 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists records with optional parameters, but does not elaborate on return format or pagination behavior, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by listing key parameters briefly.

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 including a complex 'filters' object and no output schema, the description lacks details on sort syntax, search fields, filter structure, and pagination limits, making it 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 description coverage is 0%. The description only mentions 'optional filters, search, sort, and pagination' without explaining each parameter's meaning, type, or expected values. This is insufficient for a low-coverage 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 it lists all records from the procedimientos_iso table with optional parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like procedimientos_iso_get (single record) and procedimientos_iso_create (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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get vs list). It lacks explicit context for when filtering or search is appropriate.

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