overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the exact data harvested (languages, folders, build/check commands, entry points, doc index, git status), notes the doc index is limited to titles with line numbers, and frames the value as one call instead of many. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only or harmless, which is the main missing behavioral fact for a zero-annotation tool.

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 schema is front-loaded in the first sentence, the usage rule comes second, and parameter notes last. Every clause enumerates a distinct piece of returned content, so nothing is filler despite the density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description nonetheless orients the agent on scope, usage and the single parameter. For a one-parameter read/aggregate tool this is close to complete; only the absence of any safety/permission statement and any sibling disambiguation keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'ruta absoluta al proyecto o a cualquier archivo dentro de él' specifies that the path must be absolute and that any file inside the project resolves correctly, which is real semantic value the bare string schema does not convey. It stops short of giving path format examples or error behavior.

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+resource ('Mapa del proyecto en una llamada') and then enumerates exactly what the map contains: lenguajes, carpetas, cómo se comprueba, puntos de entrada, índice de documentación y estado de git. An agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as 'outline' or 'recall', which may overlap with the documentation-index portion, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Úsalo al empezar en vez de leer README o listar carpetas' gives an explicit trigger (at project start) and an explicit alternative it replaces (manual README reading / folder listing). That is concrete when-to-use guidance, though it names no sibling-tool alternative and gives no when-not-to-use condition.

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