Obtener detalles de automatización

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it ALWAYS runs non-blocking regardless of the wait flag, and it discloses the in-process response payload shape ({ id, status: 'in_process' }) versus the completed-result behavior. It does not say how long results are retained or how an agent should poll, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the non-blocking constraint, then the two possible return states. Nothing is redundant with the title and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so for the two main branches (in-process vs. finished). It leaves open the polling cadence and whether a completed result remains retrievable, minor gaps for a 2-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds relevant meaning by asserting the wait parameter is effectively inert ('SIEMPRE consulta en modo no bloqueante'), which prevents an agent from setting wait=true expecting blocking behavior. The id parameter's provenance is also reinforced in 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 and resource ('Consulta el estado o el resultado final de una automatización') plus the key discriminator: it requires an ID of an already-started automation, sourced from 'mis_comprobantes'. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from the sibling that starts the automation without opening either schema.

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?

'previamente iniciada' plus the 'mis_comprobantes' example clearly establishes the precondition for calling this tool and implies the sibling used to launch it. What's missing is an explicit statement of what to do when status is 'in_process' (re-poll vs. stop) and how often to poll.

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