Verify the inventory and hashes of the P13 motor-starting dossier using an index path to confirm integrity before simulation.
Verifica el inventario y los hashes del dossier P13.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruta_indice | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, what happens on hash mismatch, or what the result looks like. It only says what is checked, not how the tool behaves.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the operation and its object, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.
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?
Given no annotations, one undocumented parameter, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear what 'dossier P13' contains, what inventory/hash verification entails, and what an agent should expect to do with the result.
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 one required parameter, ruta_indice, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning. The description does not mention the parameter or clarify its expected format or role in locating the dossier index.
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 specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('dossier P13') with what is checked (inventario y hashes). It is distinguishable from siblings like verificar_integridad_dossier_escenarios by the 'P13' phase reference, but the meaning of 'P13' is not self-contained and the motor-starting scope is not explicit in the description.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verificar_integridad_dossier_escenarios or verificar_integridad_dossier_real. The description offers only a bare statement of what is verified, leaving timing, prerequisites, and alternatives to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.