gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the meaningful all-or-nothing semantics ('ok solo si TODO pasa'). It stops short of stating whether the tool is read-only or executes project code, what happens on partial failure, or any permission/runtime constraints — only that ok requires everything to pass.

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?

One summary line followed by a compact argument list — no filler, and the outcome rule is front-loaded before the parameter details. Appropriate size for a three-parameter 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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema and all parameters are explained, so the definition is largely serviceable. The remaining gap is usage context: nothing says when this gate is preferable to the separate 'check' and 'test' sibling tools, leaving selection ambiguous for an agent with all three available.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: 'path' must be absolute and may point at the project or any file inside it, 'coverage' includes uncovered lines, and 'timeout' is seconds per phase. The 'per phase' detail is genuinely additive beyond the schema's bare number type, though value formats/limits are still unstated.

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 states a concrete composite action — 'check + test en una llamada' — and its outcome rule ('ok solo si TODO pasa'), which distinguishes it from the standalone 'check' and 'test' siblings. It is clear enough to select, but it never explains what 'check' or 'test' actually verify within this server, so the agent must infer the scope from sibling names.

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?

'La puerta final' implies this is intended as a terminal validation step, and 'check + test en una llamada' implies it replaces running both separately. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether tests must be discoverable), and no direct routing against the 'check' and 'test' siblings.

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