zyta_expedientes_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool does not expose credentials and only triggers sync with existing session, adding security context. However, it does not describe potential side effects, rate limits, or what 'sync' entails beyond triggering the process.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and clear.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, parameter, and a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about the response format, error handling, or what the sync process does internally, which could be useful for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). The description adds the default behavior for the optional portal parameter: 'Omitido = todos los portales conectados', which is not in the schema, providing meaningful guidance.

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 syncs expedientes from connected portals, using the specific verb 'sincroniza' and resource 'expedientes desde portales conectados'. It also mentions the HTTP endpoints, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or list.

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 indicates the security context: no credentials exposed, only triggers sync with an already connected session. This implies when to use it (with active session) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. The sibling list includes login and auth_status, providing context.

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