pandape_diagnostico

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: verifies credentials, token, and performs a real test call ('una llamada real de prueba'). While it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe the output format, it provides meaningful transparency about what the tool actually does beyond a generic 'check'.

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, action-focused sentence that immediately states the verb and purpose. It is concise, well-structured, and every part adds value: what is verified, the specific components (credentials, token, real call), and the usage priority.

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 simple zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, what is checked, and when to use it. It could enhance completeness by briefly stating what the result looks like or how to interpret the diagnostic, but that is not critical for selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and no additional parameter context is required.

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 uses a specific verb 'Verifica' (verifies) and clearly identifies the resource: configuration and connectivity with the Pandapé API, including credentials, token, and a real test call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pandape_listar_vacantes or pandape_revisar_candidatos, which focus on data operations rather than diagnostics.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Úsalo primero si algo falla' (Use it first if something fails), clearly indicating when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit statements about when not to use it or named alternatives, but the diagnostic context and 'primero' make the intended usage clear.

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