astrax_tarea_estado

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read of a compact state ("Lee", "estado compacto") and names its contents, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, whether state can be missing/empty, or how fresh the data is. Adequate but not rich for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior (what it reads) is front-loaded ahead of the usage directive. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and complexity is low. However the one input parameter is left unexplained in both schema and description, which is the main completeness gap for an otherwise self-contained tool.

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?

The single parameter "completo" has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase "estado compacto" hints that "completo" toggles between compact and full output, but the parameter is never explicitly explained, leaving an agent to guess its effect.

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 ("Lee") and resource ("el estado compacto") and enumerates what it returns: current step, next step, and saved data. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like astrax_tarea_guardar or astrax_tarea_crear, though it never names a specific sibling as the contrast.

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 cada paso EN LUGAR de releer el historial o capturas viejas" gives an explicit trigger (start of each step) and an explicit alternative to avoid (history re-reads, old screenshots). The when-to-use condition and the replacement behavior are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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