exportar_reporte_tecnico_p7c

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 two useful traits – the output is reproducible and the snapshot must carry a valid hash – but says nothing about where the file is written, what happens on hash failure, write/permission requirements, or whether an existing output is overwritten. For a file-producing tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 a required nested object, an undocumented optional path parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-liner is insufficient. The agent cannot determine invocation conditions, failure modes, or the destination of the generated HTML without opening sibling tools or guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'snapshot' parameter as a P7A snapshot, which helps, but it never explains 'ruta_salida', its default, or that the nested snapshot object accepts arbitrary additional properties.

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 ('Genera HTML reproducible') and the resource it draws from ('desde un snapshot P7A'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling 'exportar_reporte_desde_archivo_p7c', leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the parameter shapes alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative 'exportar_reporte_desde_archivo_p7c' or 'obtener_contrato_reporte_p7c'. The only implicit condition is the phrase 'con hash válido', which hints at a validity requirement but never explains what to do if validation fails.

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