Lint estructura académica

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is analyzed but does not mention whether the tool mutates anything, whether it requires permissions, what the return format is, or how it handles errors. The verb 'Analiza' hints at read-only behavior, but this is not explicit enough.

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 immediately states the purpose and then gives an input spec. There is no filler or redundancy; it could be slightly richer with output info, but as written it is appropriately 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return semantics, but it does not. It sufficiently detailed the input shape, yet the agent is left without information about what the lint results look like or how to interpret them, which is a significant gap for an analysis 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 schema describes structureJson and leaves expectNumberedChapters with only a default value, so coverage is partial. The description adds valuable shape details for structureJson — '{ headings: [{text, namedStyleType, startIndex?, endIndex?}] }' — going beyond the schema's generic 'JSON stringificado' note. However, expectNumberedChapters remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 starts with 'Analiza headings, numeración, placeholders y posibles problemas APA' — a specific verb and target resource that clearly identify this as a structural lint/analysis tool. It covers a distinct set of concerns (headings, numbering, APA issues) but does not explicitly differentiate its scope from sibling tools like lint_text_placeholders or compact_headings_view.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies that input should come from get_document_structure, but it doesn't state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what conditions make it applicable.

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