procesar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions files are read locally and tasks are bounded, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification), authorization needs, error behavior, or whether the tool returns results or just triggers processing.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and provides concrete examples. It is concise but could benefit from bullet points for use cases. No filler sentences.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, error handling, and does not fully explain all parameters. The tool's processing nature requires more context for safe use.

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?

The description explains that 'archivos' should be file paths instead of content, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the 'tipo' enum (codigo vs texto), 'contexto', or the required 'instruccion' in enough detail. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool delegates a bounded processing task to the local cluster, and lists specific use cases (boilerplate, docstrings, format conversions, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings implicitly by focusing on local, single-task processing.

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 description advises to pass file paths instead of content, and mentions '0 tokens cloud' for cost awareness. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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