fijar_detectable

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 that the tool changes an object's detectability, explains the consequence (invisibility to 'leer_sensor_proximidad'), and offers a troubleshooting tip. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the toggle nature is implied by 'marca o desmarca'. No contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence provides meaningful operational insight (cause of sensor malfunction) without fluff. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with only 2 parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the purpose, the effect on sensors, and a practical use case. However, it lacks parameter explanations, which are partially covered in the parameter semantics score. Overall, given the simple nature of the tool and existing schema, the description is fairly complete, but not perfect.

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 for parameter meaning. It explains the concept of 'detectable' implicitly but never explicitly describes the 'nombre' parameter or how to use the 'detectable' boolean (e.g., what values map to marking/unmarking). It does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema's titles already imply. This is a significant gap given 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?

Purpose is explicitly stated: 'Marca o desmarca un objeto como detectable por los sensores de proximidad.' The verb 'marca/desmarca' and resource 'objeto' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fijar_orientacion' or 'obtener_posicion' by focusing on detectability for proximity sensors.

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 clear context on when this tool is relevant: it explains how non-detectable objects affect 'leer_sensor_proximidad' and that it is a common cause of sensor malfunction. This implies when to use it (when sensors appear broken), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'crear_sensor_proximidad' or give a formal when-not-to-use. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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