auditar_repositorio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: read-only, local, static, and bounded by safe limits. This is valuable safety information, though it does not detail what those limits are or how failures are handled.

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 communicates the core purpose and behavioral character with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, even if 'límites seguros' is somewhat vague.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to call the tool reliably without guessing. It does not mention return format, how to use path, what dependencyScan implies, or the meaning of the safety limits in practice.

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 description does not compensate. Phrases like 'límites seguros' hint at timeout and max* parameters but explain none of the 7 parameters, including format, dependencyScan, or path semantics.

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 specific action ('auditoría estática local y de solo lectura') on a clear resource ('repositorio'), using a distinct verb and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like evaluar_proyecto or generar_checklist_auditoria by focusing on a local, read-only repository audit.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would select this tool when needing to audit a repository. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites or context.

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