validar_arranque_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 does disclose one meaningful behavior - that the network is not solved - which is useful negative scope. But it says nothing about whether results are persisted, what validation outcome looks like, or whether it mutates the manifest/project 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 short sentence with the scoping constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on terse given the tool's apparent 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 domain-specific validation tool with a nested opaque parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not explain the manifest contract, what 'P13' admission/preparation means, or what the agent should expect on success.

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?

There is exactly one required parameter (manifest, a nested object with additionalProperties) and schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no clue about what the manifest must contain or how it differs from manifests in sibling validar_* tools, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states a verb-like act (evalúa admisión y preparación P13) and a scope constraint (sin resolver la red), which separates it somewhat from ejecutar_arranque_motores. However, 'P13' is opaque jargon and 'admisión y preparación' is vague without domain context, so an agent cannot fully distinguish it from the many other validar_*_motores siblings.

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 'sin resolver la red' implies a non-solving context, hinting at when this is preferred over ejecutar_arranque_motores, but no alternative tool is named and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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