fast_ncm_redaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It advertises 'sin gastar tokens de LLM' (no LLM token cost) and a parallel strategy, but does not explain what the tool actually executes, whether it is read-only, latency/cost expectations, or limits on input size. The token claim is intriguing but unverifiable and potentially misleading.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse; nothing is padded. The parameter lines repeat names already in the schema, but that repetition earns its place given zero schema description coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with only two simple string parameters the surface area is small. Still, key operational facts are missing: what 'parallel coarse-to-fine' entails, input size limits, and whether the 'no LLM tokens' claim implies a local or deterministic pipeline.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does define both parameters: context_or_code as the source code/function to document and instruction as the requested documentation guideline. However, it omits the 'instruction' default value ('Document technical summary') and gives no guidance on expected format or length for either argument.

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+resource: generates technical documentation from source code, with an unusual method note ('paralela coarse-to-fine sin gastar tokens de LLM'). The purpose is distinguishable and concrete, though the 'parallel coarse-to-fine' mechanism is not explained enough to be actionable. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is required.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist for documenting code. The Args block describes what each parameter is, not the situations that call for this tool. An agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose sentence.

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