treeflow_simulate_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely meets it: it flags the operation as a test message ('mensaje de prueba'), the session_id parameter describes a simulated chat, and it discloses precisely what is returned — intent with confidence, entities, and the new session state/node. It does not explicitly state whether any persistent side effects occur, a minor gap for a simulation 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 efficiently packed sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second lists the return values. Since there is no output schema, enumerating the return contract in prose is necessary rather than redundant. There is no filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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 moderate-complexity simulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what to send, what comes back, and that the session is simulated. Remaining gaps, such as error handling and explicit confirmation of non-persistence, are secondary for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (message, tree_id, session_id) are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific action — sending a test message to the bot's console — with an explicit purpose of testing the conversational flow in real time. It also enumerates the return contract (bot response, intent with confidence score, entities, session state), which reinforces what the tool does. None of the sibling tools offer simulation or testing, so it is clearly distinguished from the CRUD operations around it.

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?

'Para probar en tiempo real el flujo conversacional' provides a clear invocation context: use this when you need to test how a bot conversation behaves. There are no explicit exclusions, but since no sibling tool overlaps with simulation functionality, naming an alternative is less critical; the context alone is sufficient.

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