Estado y previsualización de rondas

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'No modifica datos' reinforces rather than extends them. It adds mild context that the result can include one round or recent rounds and captures/confirmed/pending detections, but it does not detail response shape, limits, or auth requirements.

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?

One sentence front-loads the action and scope, followed by a useful non-modification note. No wasted words or repeated schema details.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description states what is shown and explicitly rules out data modification. It could be more explicit about the 'recent' window or exact response structure, but there are no critical gaps for invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by implying round_id is optional: a concrete round vs recent rounds. This gives the agent enough semantic meaning for the sole optional parameter, even though it does not mention round_id's format or source.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Muestra', and a clear resource: a specific round or recent rounds, listing the included data (captures, confirmed/pending detections). This separates it from sibling round_* tools that start, analyze, record, or finalize rounds.

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?

Usage context is only implied: 'No modifica datos' and the title 'Estado y previsualización' signal a read-only status check, and sibling names suggest the workflow. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool or what other sibling would be appropriate.

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