generar_diagrama_unifilar

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 only that output is workspace-independent SVG/HTML; it does not state whether it is read-only, whether it overwrites an existing file at ruta_salida, what modes mean, or what permissions/state it requires.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 7-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, output behavior (file writing, format specifics), and any parameter guidance the agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them (modo, orientacion, ruta_salida, mostrar_marca/reglas/leyenda). Nothing compensates for the total absence of parameter documentation.

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") and resource ("unifilar técnico SVG/HTML"), clarifying the output format and that it is workspace-independent. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the action, though it does not differentiate itself explicitly from sibling diagram/export tools.

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 description gives no indication of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a model must already exist), and no mention of alternatives among the many diagram/report siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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