Flujo de mensajes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core actions (list and aggregate tips) but does not specify whether this is read-only, what 'recientes' means in terms of time window, or any side effects. It also doesn't disclose potential limitations or auth requirements, which is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (list conversations) and then adds the aggregation detail. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is easy to parse quickly.

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 description explains the main function and what is returned (conversations and aggregated tips), but it lacks important context such as the time period for 'recientes', the output format, and whether any filtering is possible. With no output schema, these details are left ambiguous, making it minimally viable but with clear 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. The baseline of 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 the tool lists conversations (messaging/groups) and aggregates tips from recent messages. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resources involved, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools, though the focus on tips is unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply describes what the tool does without mentioning any context, exclusions, or prerequisites. There is no mention of when this would be preferred over other tools like obtener_metricas_perfil or analizar_rendimiento_posts.

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