proponer-respuestas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: it will not fabricate data and will not send anything, and it surfaces items needing user confirmation. That is real behavioral context, but permissions, whether the draft is persisted, and what the response contains are left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the key safety constraint both front-loaded. Every clause carries 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is mostly adequate: it conveys the output is a drafted note plus flagged items. The unexplained "id" parameter and the absence of any indication of what the draft is tied to leave a real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is a single required integer parameter "id" that the description never mentions or explains. The agent cannot tell from the definition whether that id refers to a session, an application, or a profile, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 names a concrete verb ("Redacta") and a concrete artifact ("la nota al empleador"), plus its source ("a partir del perfil maestro"), so an agent can tell it produces draft text rather than sending it. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with near siblings like responder-cuestionario or postular-a-oferta.

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 phrase "señala lo que requiere confirmación del usuario" and "nunca... envía nada" imply this is a pre-submission drafting step, which hints at when to reach for it. However, no alternative tool is named and no condition is given for choosing this over responder-cuestionario or postular-a-oferta, so usage must be inferred.

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