generar_dossier_arranque_motores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions replay and SHA-256 integrity, which is useful output context, but omits mutation side effects, whether existing Workspace/dossier files are overwritten, required permissions, and what happens with the three required nested inputs.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it may be too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has four parameters, three required nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. A one-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

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% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (manifest, paquete_perfiles, paquete_secuencias, directorio_salida). For a tool with required nested objects, the description provides no parameter semantics to compensate.

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 ('Genera') and resource ('Workspace y dossier P13'), and adds replay and SHA-256 integrity, so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling dossier tools such as generar_dossier_escenarios_operativos or generar_dossier_piloto_real.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also generate dossiers, nor are prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name and domain context.

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