resumir_archivos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone carries the burden. It discloses parallel execution and that files do not pass through the context, which is useful. However, it omits many behavioral traits: required permissions, file size limits, supported formats, whether it's read-only (likely safe), or error behavior. The disclosure is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraints ('en paralelo', 'sin que pasen por tu contexto'). Every word contributes meaning; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core function, parallelism, and context behavior. It lacks details on return format, error handling, and file type support, but these are secondary for a summarizing tool. The description is mostly complete for its complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It relates 'rutas' to file paths and 'instruccion' to the extraction instruction, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify path format (absolute/relative) or allowed instruction formats (natural language vs. specific syntax). The description provides a baseline but not full compensation.

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's purpose: summarizing or extracting information from files by path, emphasizing parallel execution and not passing files through the context. This differentiates it from siblings like 'procesar' (full processing) and 'revisar_archivos' (review). The verb 'Resume o extrae' and resource 'archivos por ruta' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing to extract info without full file loading ('sin que pasen por tu contexto'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., when full file content analysis is needed) or mention alternative siblings. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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