analizar_archivo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or authentication are needed, whether it produces side effects, or what the recommendations output looks like. Only the high-level analysis purpose is disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it lacks any structuring or elaboration for a tool with several inputs and an implied 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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more than it does. It identifies the resource and the type of output (recommendations), but omits when to use it versus alternatives and does not describe the recommendation format or scope limitations.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying a file path, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (analizar) and resource (archivo específico de React/Next.js) plus the outcome (recomendaciones). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling analizar_repositorio tool.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus analizar_repositorio or listar_archivos_react. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned; the agent must infer that a single file should be analyzed here.

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