generar_checklist_auditoria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool generates a reproducible evidence list, but it does not explain whether the operation has side effects, how the boolean parameters affect behavior, what output format to expect, or whether anything is persisted.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it lacks any structured elaboration about parameters or output.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse to allow an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explain how the inputs map to an audit checklist or what the returned 'lista de evidencias' contains.

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 mention any of the six input parameters. It does not clarify the role of 'name', the meaning of 'language', or how 'sellsOnline', 'usesProviders', 'storesSensitiveData', and 'processesPersonalData' shape the generated checklist.

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 the tool's action and resource: 'Genera una lista reproducible de evidencias para auditoría.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings that search regulations, consult obligations, or audit repositories, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or scope the audit type.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools such as 'auditar_repositorio' or 'evaluar_proyecto.' The description implies use when an audit evidence list is needed, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing among alternatives.

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