evaluar_cierre_p3

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key blocking behavior ('debe bloquear avance mientras falte evidencia/cobertura normativa'), but does not clarify whether the tool only evaluates or also mutates state, what it returns, or any permission requirements.

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 well-formed sentence front-loads the action and then states the current expected outcome. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry the full burden of explaining the evaluation result and what happens on success or failure. It states the blocking condition but omits return format, side effects, and how the outcome should be interpreted, leaving an agent under-informed for a gate tool.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because the schema coverage is trivially complete and the description need not add parameter-level detail.

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 ('Evalúa') and resource ('gate formal P3'), making the core action clear. It does not explain what P3 covers or explicitly contrast with sibling gates like evaluar_cierre_p2 or evaluar_cierre_p5, leaving differentiation implicit through the gate number.

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 a contextual condition — the gate should block progress while normative evidence/coverage is missing — which implies when the tool matters. However, it does not say when to call this tool versus the other gate evaluators or preparation tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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