obtener_contrato_p8f2_integridad_dossier

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 implies a read-only getter, but never states whether it fails when the dossier is absent, whether it is idempotent, or what the 'contract' represents operationally. Only surface-level behavior (returns a hash) 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target in the minimum number of words.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the returned 'contrato SHA-256' contains or its format. It identifies the subject but leaves the return shape and any failure conditions unspecified, so an agent knows roughly what it gets but not its structure.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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: 'Devuelve el contrato SHA-256 del dossier Engineering Preview.' An agent can identify the operation and the target (the Engineering Preview dossier's integrity contract). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling 'obtener_contrato_*' tools beyond the phase-specific resource name, so the differentiation relies on the tool name rather than the description.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. dossier must already be generated), and no mention of alternatives such as verificar_integridad_dossier_real or the sibling p8f3/p8f4 contract getters. Given the dense cluster of near-identical 'obtener_contrato_*' tools, this omission is significant.

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