Auditoría de la caja fuerte

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It suggests a read-only inspection ('Inspecciona') and states the output intent ('identificando tipos de contenido'), but it does not disclose return format, limitations, or whether any side effects exist. This is partial but not complete 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant fluff. It conveys the verb, resource, and goal efficiently.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a minimally viable action and data source. However, it lacks context about what 'caja fuerte' refers to, what the audit returns, and when it is relevant. This leaves some completeness gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden. The description adds context about what is inspected (media types) but no parameter details are needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Inspecciona') and names the exact resource ('media publicado en el muro del perfil (mediaoffers/location)') with a clear objective ('identificando tipos de contenido'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like auditar_promociones_tiers or analizar_rendimiento_posts.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage solely from the action described.

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