verificar_snapshot_proyecto_p7a

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 says verification happens without rebuilding the model but omits whether the operation is read-only, what constitutes a pass/fail, what happens when a hash mismatches, and whether anything is mutated or persisted.

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 terse sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is arguably too terse given what is left unexplained, but there is no structural waste.

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 tool whose sole parameter is an untyped nested object, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should explain the snapshot input and the verification result. Almost none of that is present, so an agent could not reliably invoke 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% and the single required 'snapshot' parameter is an open object with additionalProperties: true and no description. The description does not explain the shape, expected keys, or provenance of that snapshot, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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 concrete action (verify) on concrete artifacts (schema/hash) and implicitly contrasts itself with reconstruction via 'sin reconstruir el modelo'. The resource being verified (the project snapshot) is only inferable from the tool name, not the description, so it stops short of a 5.

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 reconstruir el modelo' hints that this is the lightweight check alternative to reconstruct-then-verify siblings like reconstruir_snapshot_proyecto_p7b, but it never names an alternative or states when/why to choose this over them.

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