comprobar_sensor_proximidad

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that this tool performs an immediate physical detection rather than reading cached simulation state. It does not mention possible errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a simple probe tool these are less critical and are partly covered by the presence of an output schema.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a useful contrast and an intended-use statement. Every sentence adds information and no redundant filler is present.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it communicates purpose, timing, simulation independence, and differentiates the sibling tool. The main gap is the lack of parameter semantics, and the absence of annotations leaves the safety/permission profile unstated; nevertheless, the overall context is sufficient for selection in most cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'sensor' parameter beyond its name. The parameter name suggests it identifies a proximity sensor, but no guidance about valid values, object naming, or how missing/invalid sensors behave is given, so the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Detecta ahora mismo con un sensor de proximidad, sin necesidad de simulación.' It clearly identifies the real-time detection action and explicitly distinguishes this tool from 'leer_sensor_proximidad', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 names the sibling alternative 'leer_sensor_proximidad' and explains why it is not the right choice for live detection: that tool only returns the last simulator sweep and reports nothing when simulation is stopped. It then states for this tool 'sirve para verificar una escena en reposo', giving a clear when-to-use context.

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