cargar_modelo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious security risk: external .ttm files can contain Lua child scripts that execute on Play, so loading an arbitrary path is equivalent to running untrusted code. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then explains the key parameter, then gives a concise security rationale. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the reader from purpose to constraints to risk.

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?

The security context, path restriction, and link to listar_modelos make the tool safe and usable. The main gap is that x, y, and z are not described at all, even though they likely control placement; an agent might still infer their meaning from names and defaults, but explicit documentation would make the tool fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the required 'modelo' parameter, including its origin, format, and an example, but it says nothing about the x, y, and z parameters, which remain only minimally indicated by their names and default values.

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 ('Carga') and resource ('un modelo .ttm de la librería de CoppeliaSim en la escena'), clearly distinguishing it from loading a whole scene (cargar_escena). It even provides an example path to remove ambiguity.

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 directs the agent to obtain the model path from listar_modelos, and explains why only library paths are allowed. It does not directly contrast with cargar_escena, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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