wyro API

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a link for the user to open and that the current key still works without reconfiguration, but it omits what happens after the link is opened, whether the link expires, and what side effects occur on existing accounts.

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 front-loaded with the main behavior: returning the connection link. The third sentence about the current key still working is useful context, though slightly tangential to invoking 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?

For a tool that returns a link and has no output schema, the description explains the return value and the usage condition. It is still incomplete about the real-account connection flow, link lifecycle, and any effects on existing configuration or accounts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'red' parameter is fully documented with an enum. The description refers only generically to 'una red', adding no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns a link the user must open to connect a real social account and publish for real. It distinguishes real-account connection from simulation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as wyro_publicar or wyro_cuentas.

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

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

It gives a clear usage condition: use it when the user wants to stop simulating. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for account listing, starting, or publishing.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a meaningful trait: results may be simulated in test mode vs. real once the user connects accounts. It doesn't describe return format or ordering, but for a zero-parameter read tool it adds real 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?

Two sentences, no waste, purpose front-loaded followed by the usage cue. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple zero-param listing tool with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it lists and why/when to call it. Return-value details are absent but not strictly required given no output 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?

The schema has zero parameters and full description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('cuentas de redes sociales disponibles'), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, but the 'antes de publicar' cue ties it implicitly to wyro_publicar.

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

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

Explicitly states when to call it ('Úsala antes de publicar para saber a qué redes puedes enviar'), giving a clear selection context. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not conditions, keeping it just below the top band.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that no registration is required, that calling it is effectively idempotent (returns existing status rather than creating a duplicate), and that it also returns explanatory next steps. It doesn't address failure modes, key expiry, or whether the trial key is rate-limited or scoped, which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Three short sentences: what it does, when to call it, and what happens otherwise. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant — every clause adds decision-relevant 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?

For a zero-param onboarding tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: it creates the key, explains next steps, and returns existing status when a key is present. It could say more about the shape of the returned key/status, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments by relying on 'sin registro' and ambient state (whether a key already exists).

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 names a concrete action and its result — creating a free trial key with no registration — plus the secondary behavior of explaining next steps. The sentence about when another tool reports a missing key makes it immediately distinguishable from the other wyro_* tools that presumably consume the key.

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

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

It states the exact precondition for calling it ('solo si Wyro todavía no tiene clave o si las otras herramientas dicen que falta la clave') and how it behaves when that condition is already satisfied (returns the current status instead of failing). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance rather than implied 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (status values plus preview links), especially valuable since there's no output schema, but it doesn't state side-effect freedom, error behavior for unknown ids, or whether results change over time (polling semantics).

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

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

Two tight sentences: the return contents come first, the usage instruction second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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, the description correctly fills that gap by naming the returned fields (state values and preview links). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (invalid id, in-flight posts) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already includes a 'post_abc123' example, so the description's '(empieza con post_)' largely repeats structured data. It adds mild provenance value by tying the id to the publish call, but no format or validation nuance 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 definition states a specific verb and resource (returns the state of a post) and even enumerates the possible states (programado, publicado, fallido) plus preview links. Siblings are write/setup tools (wyro_publicar, wyro_cuentas), so it's clear this is a status check, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself against wyro_publicar.

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

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

It says to use it with the id returned by publishing ('el id que devolvió la publicación'), which gives a clear trigger context tied to wyro_publicar. There's no explicit 'when not to use' or what to do if the post is still pending, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the human-confirmation requirement for real accounts, the preview-link return value, and per-platform media constraints. It stops short of describing what happens on multi-network partial failures or what errors look like, so not a 5.

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?

Six short clauses, each doing distinct work: purpose, when to use, when not to use, confirmation gate, return value, and media constraints. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety prerequisite, the return value to surface to the user, and platform media requirements. It leaves the cross-platform fan-out behavior (per-network success/failure) and error semantics unstated, which is a nontrivial gap for a multi-target publish.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field including examples. The description adds real value beyond that by encoding platform-specific media rules (Instagram/Pinterest need image or video; TikTok/YouTube require video), though it adds nothing about 'medios' URL handling or scheduling formats.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb pair ("publica o programa") plus the resource (un post) and an explicit platform list, so the agent knows exactly what operation it triggers. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by ruling out metric reading and by its obvious contrast with wyro_estado_post / wyro_cuentas.

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?

States the trigger ("Úsala cuando el usuario pida publicar o programar contenido") and an explicit exclusion ("No la uses para leer métricas"), which routes analytics requests to a different tool. It also adds a prerequisite gate: ask the user for confirmation on real accounts before calling with confirmar=true.

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