workana_evaluar_proyecto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the analysis actually surfaces — scoring dimensions and specific risk alerts such as off-platform payment, unpaid work and WhatsApp contact — which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 that names the action first and then packs the scoring dimensions and alert types into a tight parenthetical list. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still communicates the shape of the result (score, breakdown, alerts, advice), and annotations cover the safety profile. The one gap is routing guidance relative to its siblings, so an agent knows when this analysis is warranted versus a plain project fetch.

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 100%: 'proyecto', 'mis_skills' (with default-profile fallback) and 'formato' are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Analiza a fondo un proyecto') and enumerates the concrete output: a 0-100 score with a breakdown across five dimensions, alerts, pros/cons and proposal tips. That is far more specific than a bare title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like workana_ver_proyecto or workana_mejores_oportunidades.

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 rather than stated: it's clearly the 'should I apply?' tool, which sits after ver_proyecto and alongside mejores_oportunidades. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the routing from the sibling names alone.

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