obtener_estado_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does indicate this is a read/return-style tool and enumerates what comes back, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, or whether it mutates state.

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, tightly front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned content is listed compactly and every clause earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating what the tool returns. It is nearly complete for a simple state getter, though it lacks any note on read-only semantics or error conditions.

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 (empty object schema), so there is nothing to document beyond the schema; a 4 baseline applies. The description correctly avoids redundant parameter talk.

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 clear verb ('Devuelve') and resource (workspace state) and enumerates the returned fields: ruta, revisiones, validez de resultados, estudios registrados. It is distinguishable from mutating siblings like configurar_workspace/regenerar_workspace, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

The name and verb imply a status/inspection call, so usage is inferable, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives versus siblings such as obtener_estado_protecciones_p5a or obtener_estado_ampacidad. Guidance is only implied.

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