reconstruir_snapshot_proyecto_p7b

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it verifies a hash, reconstructs, and enforces a canonical round-trip constraint. But it omits failure semantics, what happens to the reconstruction directory, whether it overwrites, and what the tool returns.

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 no filler, front-loading the primary action. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with a nested free-form object input, no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, one terse line is not enough. An agent cannot tell what a valid snapshot is or what a successful/round-trip-failing run produces.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the required 'snapshot' parameter is a free-form nested object (additionalProperties: true), yet the description says nothing about its expected contents. 'directorio_reconstruccion' is likewise unexplained (is it created, cleared, or required to be empty?). The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

It names a verb ('reconstruye') and resource ('snapshot_proyecto'), and adds two distinguishing behaviors (hash verification, canonical round-trip). However 'DSS' is unexplained jargon and the description does not differentiate it from the sibling 'reconstruir_archivo_proyecto_p7b', which sounds like the same action on a different input.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of the close sibling alternatives (reconstruir_archivo_proyecto_p7b, verificar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a). The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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