Generate Action Plan Markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at output content (responsables, evidencia de cierre) but says nothing about whether a file is written, where it goes, what permissions or data prerequisites are needed, or how it behaves with missing optional params.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized, though the Spanish phrasing is a minor inconsistency against the otherwise English toolset.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but for a 7-parameter generator with nested objects and zero schema coverage, the description omits too much about required inputs and behavior. It is inadequate for the tool's 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% across 7 parameters, including required ones like client_name, project_title, and the nested roadmap_data object. The description mentions 'responsables' and 'evidencia de cierre' only as output content, leaving every input parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (Genera) and resource (plan de acción en Markdown), and the 'en Markdown' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling generate_action_plan_pdf. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related generate_action_plan_pdf alternative. An agent must guess whether this or the PDF variant is appropriate.

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