astrax_esperar

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral constraint absent from the schema — the 0.1-15 s range — which tells the agent the wait is bounded and will not accept arbitrarily long durations. It does not say whether the call blocks, whether it is re-runnable, or what it returns, but for a low-risk sleep primitive those gaps are minor.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and range front-loaded and the rationale in parentheses. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 values need no explanation, and for a one-parameter sleep tool the description covers duration, purpose, and sequencing. Slightly incomplete in not indicating whether the wait is blocking or how it pairs with the verification step that follows.

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% and the single 'segundos' parameter has no description, default of 2. The description compensates partially by stating the unit and the valid 0.1-15 s window, which is not present in the schema (no min/max). It still does not explain what happens at the boundary values or how it interacts with the caller's timing.

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?

States a specific verb (esperar/wait) plus the resource context (carga de apps o páginas) and the sequence ('antes de verificar'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like astrax_clic or astrax_escribir, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'antes de verificar' implies when to use it (after triggering a load, before checking state), and the parenthetical scopes it to app/page loading. However there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for cases where a fixed wait is the wrong approach.

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