verificar_integridad_dossier_real

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides very little. It does not state that this is a read-only validation, what happens on mismatch, whether the integrity file must pre-exist, or what a result looks like. Only the input mechanism (dossier_integrity.json) is disclosed.

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 compact sentence with no waste, and the key action is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than padded, so the brevity is not harmful to structure.

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 verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is being verified and what the caller receives. Instead it leaves the single parameter and the outcome semantics unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently invoke or interpret it.

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% for the single required parameter 'ruta_indice', and the description only vaguely gestures at a dossier_integrity.json file rather than explaining that the parameter is the index/root path locating the dossier to revalidate. The one parameter's meaning remains unclear.

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 (revalida) and resource (dossier copiado) plus the mechanism used (dossier_integrity.json). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling integrity-check tools verificar_integridad_dossier_escenarios and verificar_integridad_dossier_arranque_motores; the word 'real' in the name is the only differentiator and the description never explains it.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the sibling integrity verifiers. The phrase 'un dossier copiado' hints at the post-copy scenario, but the agent must infer it.

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