evaluar_proyecto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool generates preliminary risks and controls, but does not clarify whether it persists results, requires special permissions, or produces AI-generated output that should be reviewed. The word 'preliminares' adds a small degree of context but not enough.

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 description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action and result, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and six parameters with zero schema documentation, this description is incomplete. An agent does not know the output format, whether the operation has side effects, how parameters affect results, or what 'preliminary' means operationally.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not. The booleans are reasonably self-explanatory from their names, but the description fails to confirm how they influence the generated risks/controls or what 'name' and 'language' fully contribute.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Genera') and resource ('riesgos y controles preliminares para un proyecto'), which distinguishes it from siblings focused on regulation lookup and auditing. It could be slightly more explicit about the supporting inputs, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings like generar_checklist_auditoria or auditar_repositorio. The context implies it is for project risk evaluation, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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