obtener_referencias_proteccion_p5c

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is a safe read, whether it mutates workspace state, or what the returned 'references/scope' consist of. Only the weak implication of 'devuelve' (returns) hints at read-only behavior.

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, front-loaded with the verb. It is not padded, but it is too terse to be maximally useful.

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 is the only source of information about what the tool returns, and terms like 'referencias objetivo' and 'alcance explícito de P5C' are never explained. An agent cannot confidently predict the payload or its role in the P5C stage.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage, 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?

The description largely restates the tool name: 'obtener_referencias' becomes 'devuelve referencias'. 'Referencias objetivo y alcance explícito' is opaque jargon that does not tell an agent what data actually comes back, and it draws no boundary against sibling P5C tools such as evaluar_capacidad_corte_p5c or evaluar_soportabilidad_termica_conductor_p5c.

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, what precondition (e.g., a prior P5C evaluation step) triggers it, or which sibling it complements. The agent is left to guess its place in the P5C workflow purely from the name.

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