obtener_plan_validacion_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 burden. It implies a read ('Devuelve') but does not state read-only status, permissions, side effects, or whether the plan is generated fresh or cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 compact sentence with no filler; front-loaded verb. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which the conciseness dimension does not penalize heavily.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the shape and meaning of the returned plan (what a 'candidato', 'oráculo' or 'caso pendiente' is, and what the agent should do with them). Instead it lists three opaque nouns, leaving an agent unable to act on the result.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 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?

The verb 'Devuelve' plus three named return categories (candidatos sin calificar, oráculos analíticos, casos pendientes) gives a rough sense of the resource, but the terms are jargon-specific and the description never says what a 'plan de validación dinámica' is or how it differs from siblings like obtener_contrato_dinamica_motores or validar_datos_dinamica_motores. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this precedes a dynamic motor validation workflow.

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