pbi_audit_project

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

The description discloses that when `formats` is specified, it 'escribe tambien esos informes en outputs/ y devuelve sus rutas', which is a clear side effect beyond what annotations indicate. It also reveals that it returns prioritized findings and auto-correction rule information, adding useful behavioral context. Annotations are all false and there is no contradiction.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: scope, outputs, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description conveys the core inputs, the main outputs, and side effects (file writing), which is sufficient for an audit tool. The presence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return details. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project or connection), but the surrounding context of sibling tools helps fill that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description names all three parameters and gives a role for each: `formats` is shown with valid values and its side effect of writing reports; `rules` and `min_severity` are noted as 'acotan' (filter). However, it does not explain what `rules` contains or what severity levels are available, leaving some semantic gap.

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 opens with 'Auditoria integral: modelo semantico + informe + layout' which clearly defines a comprehensive audit covering all three areas. It enumerates specific outputs such as global/per-domain scores, executive summary, prioritized findings with evidence, and auto-correction rules, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. This integral scope distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_audit_report_only and pbi_audit_model.

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 implies full coverage with 'Auditoria integral' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to related tools (e.g., pbi_audit_report_only) are provided. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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