crear_sensor_proximidad

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

The description explains the sensor's orientation and warns about ground interference, offering transparency about spatial behavior. However, it does not disclose expected return values, side effects (e.g., scene modifications), or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise overall, but the 'two geometry pitfalls' section adds length. It is structured logically and every sentence provides value, though the pitfall explanation could be trimmed without losing essential 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?

The description covers creation, orientation, and one practical trap, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and the alias parameter. Given the tool's moderate complexity, these omissions leave gaps for a complete understanding of its usage.

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 description explains x, y, z as position in meters relative to parent, alcance as range, apertura_grados as cone angle, and padre as parent path. However, it omits the 'alias' parameter entirely, which is present in the schema, leaving its purpose undocumented and reducing semantic completeness.

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 clearly states the tool creates a conical proximity sensor and orients it forward (+X). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'leer_sensor_proximidad' (read sensor) and 'comprobar_sensor_proximidad' (check sensor), which are for reading or verifying existence, making the creation 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?

The description provides practical guidance on common geometry pitfalls (sensor orientation and ground detection) that affect usage, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The intended use case (creating a sensor) is implicit given the tool's name and sibling context.

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