obtener_contrato_dinamica_motores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it mutates workspace state, what authentication or workspace preconditions apply, or whether the described contract is static or depends on the current model. Almost nothing beyond the name is disclosed.

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 short sentence with no padding, and the object of the description is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing sacrifices clarity rather than earning extra credit.

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 contract-descriptor tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it neither explains what the returned contract contains (data fields, gate conditions) nor how an agent should act on it. The workflow role relative to its many sibling contract tools is left entirely implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, which is the baseline-4 case: there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for. No credit above baseline is warranted since no additional semantics are offered.

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 names a verb ('Describe') and a resource ('datos físicos ... del backend dinámico'), so the general intent is inferable. However, the identifiers 'P13F1' and 'gates pendientes' are opaque internal jargon, and it never states that this is a read-only contract/schema descriptor for the dynamic motor module, which is what the sibling 'obtener_contrato_*' naming implies. Purpose is only vaguely conveyed.

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 versus siblings such as validar_datos_dinamica_motores, obtener_plan_validacion_dinamica_motores, or obtener_contrato_arranque_motores. The agent must guess that this is a prerequisite contract-fetch step in the dynamics workflow.

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