Returns the fail-closed P7B reconstruction contract so clients can verify requirements and block unsafe rebuild attempts before processing certificate chains.
Devuelve las reglas fail-closed de reconstrucción P7B.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fail-closed' hints that violations block reconstruction, which is useful, but nothing is said about what the rules contain, their format, or any prerequisites. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.
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 tight sentence with the essential noun phrase up front and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given what is omitted.
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?
With zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about the tool. It identifies the artifact but says nothing about the shape or content of the returned rules, leaving the agent to guess what it will receive.
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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies.
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 ('Devuelve') and a specific resource ('las reglas fail-closed de reconstrucción P7B'), making it clear this returns the contract/rules rather than performing the reconstruction. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other obtener_contrato_* siblings (p5a, rev0, p7c, p8b, etc.) beyond the P7B label.
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 guidance on when to call this versus siblings like reconstruir_snapshot_proyecto_p7b or the other obtener_contrato_* tools. The agent must infer from the name that this is a pre-flight spec fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.