Dirección de imagen de una página, sección a sección

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns text, makes no network calls, uses no keys, and does not generate images. It also reveals specific details like the magenta-background alpha workaround and Wikimedia as the logo source, going beyond basic metadata.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading the core purpose before listing details. While longer than average, every sentence adds value, covering rationale, outputs, and exclusions. The structure is logical, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 planning tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns and when to call it. It also covers prerequisites (after plan_page), the scope (sections needed), and its limitations (text-only, no network). The sibling context is handled well by explicitly positioning it in the sequence.

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 schema descriptions already cover 75% of parameters with meaningful context (e.g., 'brief' references plan_page, 'sections' explains that without it only general rules are returned). The description reinforces the workflow but does not directly mention the 'archetype' parameter, which lacks a schema description, leaving a small gap.

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 what the tool does: it returns per-section image needs, model routing (people ≠ objects ≠ landscape), transparency recipes, cutout sheets, and logo sources. It uses specific verbs like 'devuelve' (returns) and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it does NOT generate images and provides text output.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is given: 'Llámala DESPUÉS de plan_page y ANTES de escribir un solo prompt de imagen' (call it AFTER plan_page and BEFORE writing any image prompt). It also clarifies what it does not do (no network calls, no keys, no image generation), which helps rule out inappropriate use cases.

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