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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it states the complete observable behavior: the output is identical to the input. That fully implies a side-effect-free, deterministic operation. It stops short of saying this is a diagnostic/round-trip tool, which would have made it a 5.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the essential behavior is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter pure function with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it never hints at the intended use case, such as verifying connectivity or round-tripping text.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Texto a repetir'. The description only restates that the received text is returned, adding no format, length, or encoding details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 behavior: it returns exactly the text it receives, which disambiguates the terse name 'eco'. It does not distinguish itself from the siblings, but those (info_sistema, hora_actual, sumar) are unrelated utilities, so differentiation is less critical here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this is meant for connectivity checks, round-trip testing, or echoing values back to a caller. The usage is only implicit from the echo semantics.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but this is an inherently safe read with zero parameters. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail: the time comes from the user's equipo, implying local timezone rather than server time. It says nothing about output format or precision.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Everything stated 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?

For a trivial zero-parameter tool this is mostly sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place to state the return format (string, ISO 8601, timezone handling) and it omits that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

"Devuelve la fecha y hora actuales del equipo del usuario" names a specific verb (devuelve) and resource (fecha y hora actuales), and clarifies the source as the user's machine. It is distinguishable from siblings like info_sistema or sumar, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling such as info_sistema is named as an alternative. The usage is only implied by the self-evident nature of a clock tool.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, but the tool takes zero parameters and is plainly a read-only informational call. The description usefully adds that it returns *real* (not mocked) machine data and frames it as a quick health probe, yet it says nothing about latency, sandboxing, or side effects.

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, with the data payload front-loaded and the purpose framing second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the returned fields, the fact that values are real, and the practical reason to call it. Nothing material is missing for such a simple 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 tool has zero input parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does at least preview which values the response contains, adding a little value beyond the empty schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Muestra") with an enumerated set of resources (OS, processor, memory, disk, uptime, Python version), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. None of the siblings (hora_actual, sumar, eco) overlap with this scope, making it distinguishable without opening any schema.

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?

"Es la prueba mas rapida de que todo funciona" implies a health-check/smoke-test use case, which is a genuine usage hint. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about return format (number vs string), error handling for missing/non-numeric inputs, or precision behavior. The operation is trivially simple, which limits the practical risk, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the only cost is omitted information, not wasted words.

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?

For a two-number arithmetic utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, which is the minimum needed to call it. It stops short of stating the return value or input constraints, which would complete the picture for an agent.

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% and the parameter names (a, b) are uninformative on their own, but the phrase "suma dos numeros" implies both parameters are the addends, giving partial semantic grounding. It does not clarify ordering, accepted numeric range, or whether either operand is optional, so it only marginally compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

"Suma dos numeros" states a specific verb (sum) and the operands involved, which is enough to distinguish it from the unrelated siblings (info_sistema, hora_actual, eco). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of them are arithmetic so no confusion arises.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus anything else, no note on operand types (integers, floats, negatives) and no mention of what it returns. Usage is inferable only from the one-line purpose statement.

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