enaho_panel_armar

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it returns 'unidades por ola, cuantas sobreviven a todas y la tasa de balanceo' and explicitly states it does NOT assign an expansion factor. This adds meaningful context to the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint annotations without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a crucial caveat in a separate paragraph. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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 rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on high-level behavior and the critical expansion-factor caveat. It does not need to restate return fields or parameter details because those are already captured structurally.

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 high (80%), with descriptions for llaves, modulo, salida, and variables. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not compensate for the undocumented 'anio' parameter or enhance the schema semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reestructura el panel de ancho a largo y cuantifica la atricion,' clearly stating both the transformation and the attrition quantification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enaho_unir_modulos and enaho_panel_inspeccionar, especially by adding the wide-to-long restructuring behavior.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to rely on this tool for expansion factors and directs to `enaho_panel_inspeccionar` and the manual as the correct alternative: 'NO asigna factor de expansion: el del panel hay que identificarlo con enaho_panel_inspeccionar y el manual.' This provides clear when-not and alternative guidance.

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