pbi_start_here

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

The description aligns with readOnlyHint=true by stating 'No escribe nada.' It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining how it determines next steps and mentions the Desktop-open blocker for TMDL, which is useful cautionary context.

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 moderately concise, with the core purpose stated in the first line. The opening metaphor about 132 tools is slightly extra but reinforces the tool's role; otherwise each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a starting-point tool, the description covers the main behavior, outputs common_tasks, and the safety guarantee. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values; the only real gap is the undocumented request_id parameter.

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?

The input schema has one optional request_id with no schema description and 0% coverage. The description never mentions request_id, so it adds no semantic value for parameters; it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as an entry point that inspects real state and proposes concrete next steps, including exact tool names and reasons. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by explicitly saying 'Empieza por aqui cuando no sepas que sigue.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Empieza por aqui cuando no sepas que sigue.' It also describes the conditions it evaluates (active project, model vs report, empty, Desktop open), but does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond noting it writes nothing.

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