Formatear atribución

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says it 'builds a line' without detailing how the parameters are combined, whether optional parameters affect the output, or any formatting rules. The output format is partially shown ('Fuente: …') but without explaining what replaces the ellipsis or how missing fields are handled.

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, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. It conveys the core action but omits necessary context, making it too sparse to be considered appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description must carry all contextual information. It only mentions a generic output line and figure captions, but provides no details on parameter roles, required inputs, edge cases, or expected behavior. This is completely inadequate for a tool with four parameters.

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 provides no information about the parameters (title, url, creator, license). It does not explain what each parameter contributes to the output or which are optional. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Arma una línea "Fuente: …" para pie de figura' (Builds a 'Source: …' line for figure captions). It uses a specific verb ('Arma') and resource ('línea Fuente'), and the purpose is distinct from the sibling tool search_images, which is for searching rather than formatting.

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 gives a clear usage context: for figure captions. It implies this tool should be used when an attribution line is needed for an image or figure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling search_images is clearly a different operation.

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