generar_dossier_piloto_real

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses fail-closed conditions tied to P8D2/P8F2 SHA-256 verification, incremental suffix behavior via P8F3 when the output directory already contains a delivery, and explicit non-automation of motor/fault/case/curve/rating plus no professional issuance. It lacks permission, auth, and rate-limit details, but the operational behavior is unusually well covered.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact behavioral clauses with no filler. Internal phase codes such as P8D2, P8F2, and P8F3 are dense jargon, but each sentence adds an operational constraint.

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 complex real-pilot generation tool with a required nested manifest, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits parameter structure and sibling-tool routing. Behavioral detail is good, but the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation without additional schema clues.

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 required 'manifest' parameter is a nested object with no explanation. The description only indirectly clarifies 'directorio_salida' through the existing-delivery suffix behavior; it says nothing about what manifest must contain. It does not compensate for the zero schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Ejecuta el piloto real y genera una entrega íntegra sin sobrescribir previas.' It distinguishes its non-overwriting scope, though it does not name sibling alternatives. Clear enough to identify as the real-pilot dossier generator.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling tools, such as generar_dossier_escenarios_operativos or verificar_integridad_dossier_real. The exclusions are capability boundaries, not routing advice. Usage is only implied by the tool name and opening sentence.

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