obtener_contrato_construccion_rev0

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Devuelve" weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about whether it mutates state, what the returned contract looks like, or what conditions gate it.

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 no filler; the retrieval intent is stated first. It is efficient, though so terse that it communicates little.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about the return value, and it says only "la ruta recomendada" without describing the contract's contents, format, or how it should be used. For a tool whose entire purpose is returning a contract, this is a significant gap.

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?

The input schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.

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 verb ("Devuelve") and an object ("la ruta recomendada para construir Rev.0"), so an agent knows it retrieves guidance rather than performing a build. However, the qualifier "sin Solve" is unexplained jargon, and the description never distinguishes this contract-retrieval tool from the many sibling "obtener_contrato_*" tools or from the adjacent validar_construccion_rev0 / construir_modelo_rev0.

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 statement of when to call this tool, what prerequisite state is required, or which alternatives exist. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a pre-construction guidance step rather than the construction itself.

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