evaluar_evidencia_normativa_ampacidad

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait — that it does not mutate READY_DATA or advance P3 maturity — which tells the agent this is a non-destructive classification. However, it says nothing about what it reads, whether it requires existing factor records, or what happens on missing data.

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 short clause with no filler, and the non-mutation constraint is included rather than padded. Nothing wasted for a tool of this scope.

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-argument tool with no output schema, the description must explain what state it operates on and what it produces. It says only that it classifies 'evidencia de factores' without naming the source of that evidence or the resulting classification, and the intent-vs-name inconsistency leaves real ambiguity about what the agent will get back.

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 the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented inputs, and the absence of arguments is consistent with an operation that acts on existing workspace state.

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 verb (clasifica) and resource (evidencia de factores), but the naming mismatch is jarring: the tool is called 'evaluar_evidencia_normativa_ampacidad' yet the description says 'clasifica'. It also doesn't distinguish this from siblings like evaluar_promocion_dataset_ampacidad or construir_evidencia_primaria_ampacidad, leaving the agent to guess what 'evidencia de factores' covers.

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 only usage-adjacent signal is the negative constraint 'sin cambiar READY_DATA ni madurez P3', which implies a read-only classification step but never says when to invoke it versus the other ~90 ampacity/promotion tools. No prerequisites, no trigger conditions, no named alternative.

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