proponer-respuestas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool never invents data and never sends anything, which tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating draft generator. It also surfaces the classification outcome categories (respaldada, requiere_confirmacion, sin_respaldo). It does not say whether drafts are persisted or what the response shape is, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: action and outputs first, constraint sentence second. Every clause (language, source, classification) carries information; nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs source, output categories, and safety constraints. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (must the master profile pre-exist?) and whether results are stored for postular-a-oferta to use.

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 100% and the single parameter (oferta, numeric id or workatastartup URL) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States specific verbs and outputs: drafts a message to founders and answers to application questions, in English, from the master profile, and classifies each answer. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like preguntas-de-postulacion or evaluar-encaje, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by 'a partir del perfil maestro' (i.e., use it after the master profile exists), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for related tasks like fetching questions or submitting the application.

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