construir_modelo_rev0

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

Because no annotations are present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool does not run Solve and does not regenerate workspace files, but it omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing state, and what 'admitido' entails operationally.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the action and two key constraints, though the terseness that makes it concise also contributes to the completeness gap.

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 construction tool requiring a complex nested manifest, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the manifest represents, what the tool returns, or how the constructed 'admitted model' relates to siblings like validar_construccion_rev0 or regenerar_workspace.

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% and the sole parameter is a required nested object ('manifest') with no documentation in either the schema or the description. The description provides no information about the manifest's expected structure or contents, leaving the parameter semantically opaque.

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 ('Construye') and resource ('modelo admitido'), and adds two scoping constraints ('sin Solve', 'sin regenerar archivos workspace') that distinguish it from solver tools and regenerar_workspace. It is clear enough to identify the operation, though 'modelo admitido' is jargon that could be opaque without context.

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 gives negative constraints (no Solve, no workspace file regeneration) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as regenerar_workspace, validar_construccion_rev0, or obtener_contrato_construccion_rev0. Usage is implied by the tool name and constraints, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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