validar_escenarios_operativos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral boundary — that the tool neither builds nor computes the model — which tells the agent not to expect computed results, but it says nothing about permissions, mutation of state, or what a validation failure looks like.

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 the core action front-loaded and the exclusion clause immediately after. No waste, though it is so short that it omits useful detail rather than being over-long.

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 validation tool in a complex power-systems domain with two required opaque nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about input structure and result interpretation. Referencing the contract tool (obtener_contrato_p12_escenarios_operativos) or the validation plan would have closed this gap.

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 description never mentions 'manifest' or 'paquete_escenarios'. Both are required nested objects with additionalProperties, so the agent has no guidance on their expected shape or what makes them valid.

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?

States a specific verb ('valida') and resource ('escenarios explícitos'), plus a distinguishing negative scope ('sin construir ni calcular el modelo') that separates it from construir_modelo_rev0 and ejecutar_escenarios_operativos. It stops short of naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 construir ni calcular el modelo' implies this is the pre-flight/sanity-check step before building or executing scenarios, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are named. Usage must be inferred from the constraint.

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