verificar_integridad_dossier_escenarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the verification method (SHA-256 and file-set) but says nothing about read-only vs. mutating behavior, permission requirements, what happens on mismatch, or the return format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness contributes to gaps that belong under 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It specifies the verification technique but not the input semantics, expected output, or failure behavior.

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 parameter (ruta_indice) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. An agent cannot learn what path is expected or what format it takes.

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 ('Verifica') and resource ('integridad dossier P12'), and specifies the mechanisms (SHA-256 y file-set). The 'P12' label helps distinguish it from sibling integrity checks like verificar_integridad_dossier_real and verificar_integridad_dossier_arranque_motores, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obtener_contrato_p12_escenarios_operativos or other verification tools. The implied context (post-generation integrity check) is left entirely to inference.

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