construir_snapshot_proyecto_p7a

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 does disclose two real behavioral traits: the snapshot stays in memory and a SHA-256 is returned. It says nothing about what inputs must exist beforehand, whether any state is mutated, or whether the operation is repeatable.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and ending on the returned artifact. Nothing is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It does not define what the canonical snapshot comprises, what the netlist directory is expected to contain, or what the caller does with the hash.

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 directorio_netlist has 0% schema description coverage and a default of 'temp_export_p7a', yet the description never mentions it or explains what directory should be supplied or what happens if it is omitted. This is a gap the description needed to close.

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 (construye), resource (snapshot canónico), a scope qualifier (en memoria) and the return value (SHA-256), which distinguishes it from siblings like exportar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a and verificar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus exportar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a, verificar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a, or reconstruir_snapshot_proyecto_p7b, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance. An agent must infer the role of an in-memory build purely from the name.

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