build_from_example

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'copia' and 'reemplaza' but does not state what the output is, whether it creates files, any side effects, or whether it requires a prior call to find_examples to get an example_id. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces artifacts.

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?

Two sentences with a clear, front-loaded purpose. The inline replacement format is compact and useful. It is efficiently worded, though it could have added parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to obtain an example_id, what 'name' and 'out_dir' control, or what the tool returns. An agent would likely need external knowledge or trial and error to invoke it correctly.

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 clarifies the format of 'replacements' with an inline example ({"texto viejo": "texto nuevo"}), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic object type. However, it leaves 'example_id', 'name', and 'out_dir' semantically unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 clear action: 'Copia un ejemplo oficial y reemplaza sus textos', which identifies the verb and the resource. It also provides a domain distinction ('diseño y no del layout') that helps separate it from layout-focused siblings, though it does not name any sibling 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?

It gives concrete usage contexts (planos, infografías, wireframes, canvases de negocio) and a heuristic about design vs. layout, which implies when to prefer this tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or mentions of alternative tools, so an agent must infer the boundary with siblings like build_diagram or build_from_mermaid.

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