enaho_exportar

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description discloses important behavioral details: the Excel row-limit refusal prevents silent truncation, and etiquetas=True ensures Stata usability. These are significant additional traits not covered by 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—one for the main conversion function and one for key behavioral caveats. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 export tool with a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential usage context and distinctive behaviors (Stata labels, Excel limit). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains formato options, etiquetas, and the Excel limit. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it re-emphasizes the etiquetas behavior for Stata. This meets the baseline for full schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Convierte') and resource ('dataset preparado') and clearly states the tool's purpose: converting a dataset to a desired output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on data exploration, estimation, and other ENAHO-specific 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 implies when to use the tool ('to convert a prepared dataset to a format your team uses') and adds practical guidance about etiquetas for Stata and the Excel row limit refusal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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