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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with launching a process, so the description does not contradict anything. It adds the constraint that the app must be installed, but says nothing about whether the call blocks until the app opens, what happens if the path or name is invalid, or what a successful response looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the optional file behavior. The examples earn their place by illustrating the expected name format.

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 simple two-parameter launcher with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the optional file path adequately. The only real gap is error/edge-case behavior, which is minor for a tool this small.

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 100%, so both 'nombre' and 'archivo' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the name is the app name and the file is optional, but adds no syntax, path-format, or fallback details beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Abre una aplicacion instalada por su nombre', with examples ('Safari', 'Notepad', 'firefox') that pin down the naming convention. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling listar_aplicaciones, but the action is specific enough to tell apart.

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 implies the use case (launch an already-installed app, optionally with a file), but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the app name is unknown (e.g., use listar_aplicaciones first), and no note on failure behavior.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the time comes from the user's own computer, not a server or a normalized timezone, which is a meaningful behavioral distinction for an agent reasoning about timestamps. It does not state the output format or timezone, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and the returned value come first, and the qualifier about the source machine is the only added detail.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what the tool returns and where the value comes from. The only missing piece is the return format (string format, timezone/locale), which an agent might want but is not strictly required to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and consistent with the description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a specific resource ('la fecha y hora actual del computador del usuario'), and even qualifies the source clock. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like listar_aplicaciones or abrir_aplicacion, which operate on applications rather than returning time.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, but for a zero-parameter utility tool the intended use (fetch the current timestamp) is self-evident from the description. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a listing operation, and the description adds useful scope (it reads the user's own machine, not a remote registry). However, it says nothing about cost or latency of enumerating installed apps, what happens when the list is empty, or whether results are cached — the kind of context that matters for a machine-scanning 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first states what it does, the second states when to use it. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-param read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what and when adequately. The minor gap is that the return shape (bare names? paths? display names?) is never hinted at, which matters slightly for deciding whether filtro's output feeds directly into abrir_aplicacion.

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 single parameter 'filtro' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including that it matches by name and is optional. The description adds no semantics about matching behavior (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("Lista") plus specific resource ("las aplicaciones instaladas en el computador del usuario"), which an agent can immediately distinguish from abrir_aplicacion or saludar. Scope is stated, not implied.

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?

"Usala antes de abrir una app si no conoces su nombre exacto" gives a concrete trigger condition and implicitly routes the agent away from abrir_aplicacion when the app name is unknown. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly or stating when not to call it (e.g. when the name is already known), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a greeting (no mutation), and the description adds nothing that contradicts it. Beyond that, it discloses almost no behavioral context (return format, language handling) — acceptable only because the operation is trivial and annotations already cover safety.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the testing hint second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is meta-commentary rather than operational guidance.

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 trivial two-parameter read-only greeting with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the language parameter's behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (nombre, idioma with an enum) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions greeting by name but says nothing about the idioma parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource: greet a person by their name. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which list apps, open apps, and report time, but it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

"Útil para probar que el MCP funciona" gives an implied usage context (testing/health check), but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules, and no reference to any sibling tool as an alternative.

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