seleccionar_motor_estudio

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 disclose one meaningful trait — it does not auto-dispatch computation — but omits whether the call is read-only or mutates selection state, what happens to a previously selected engine, and what the caller receives back. For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage 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 sentence with no filler, and the most important point (no automatic dispatch) is placed at the end where it is easy to miss, but overall it is tight and front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, the definition is far too sparse to let an agent call it correctly. It needs to explain what backend/aptitude means concretely and how each parameter influences the selection.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four undocumented parameters (norma, estudio, tipo_falla, permitir_experimental). It gestures at concepts ('requisitos', 'aptitud', 'experimental') but maps none of them to a parameter or explains accepted values.

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 says the tool reports backend, requirements and current aptitude, which loosely matches the name 'seleccionar_motor_estudio', but it never states outright that it selects the study engine. The negative clause ('no despacha el cálculo') hints at differentiation from the evaluar/ejecutar siblings, yet the core verb+resource is left implicit.

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 phrase 'no despacha el cálculo automáticamente' implies this is a preparatory/consultative step rather than an execution step, which is useful context. However, no alternative tool is named (e.g. evaluar_preparacion_estudio) and no when-to-use condition is stated explicitly.

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