exportar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it does add one concrete behavioral trait: it will not overwrite existing files. It still omits permissions, what happens on filename collision (error vs rename), and where output lands, which matters for a file-writing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple export operation, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent what the export produces, where it goes, or how it relates to the sibling snapshot tools in the p7a pipeline.

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% for both parameters (ruta_salida, directorio_netlist) with no defaults documented in prose. The description mentions a snapshot but never clarifies the output path parameter or the netlist directory parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource (exportar/export the snapshot) tied to the p7a project phase, which is concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings construir_snapshot_proyecto_p7a and verificar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a, so the agent must infer the pipeline position.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool vs constructing or verifying the snapshot. The 'sin sobrescribir' clause hints at a constraint but provides no context, preconditions, or named alternatives.

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