comparar-perfil

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the shape of the output (missing, outdated, extra, recommended fixes), which is helpful, but it never says whether the operation is read-only or whether it changes anything, nor what 'corregir en la web' actually triggers. That ambiguity is a real gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the four output categories with no padding. The trailing clause 'lo que conviene corregir en la web' is slightly vague but does not waste much space.

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 output schema, the description should describe return values, and it does list the four comparison categories. However, it omits prerequisites (existing CV/profile), the source of the 'perfil maestro', and whether the result is advisory only, leaving gaps for a tool that performs a multi-source comparison.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is parameterless, operating implicitly on the session user's data.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it compares the user's Magneto CV against the master profile and enumerates gaps, outdated items, extras, and fixes. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like listar-mis-cv or ver-perfil-maestro. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the comparison scope is unique enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for auditing one's CV against the master profile, but there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a CV and master profile must already exist), and no reference to any alternative tool.

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