revisar_archivos

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions parallelism and that files are not added to context, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details on authorization needs, side effects, or return format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise at two sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the purpose and key behavioral notes. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or explicit separations.

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 absence of an output schema and only two parameters with no description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how findings are structured, or how 'enfoque' affects behavior. Essential context for a code review tool is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names ('rutas' and 'enfoque'). The 'enfoque' parameter is not explained, and 'rutas' lacks format or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it is a first pass of code review on file paths, running in parallel per file, and returning only findings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'estado' or 'procesar' by specifying its role as an initial review step.

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 as a first step ('primera pasada') and that files do not pass through context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide scenarios to avoid. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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