panel_metricas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool only references a UI resource and returns a brief confirmation, while the actual dashboard is rendered by the host from the resource. It does not elaborate on potential edge cases or permissions, but for a lightweight tool like this, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (QUÉ HACE, CUÁNDO USARLO, Returns) and every sentence adds valuable information. It is concise enough to be easily parsed while covering all necessary aspects, with no superfluous filler.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no siblings, a clear output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's mechanism, usage conditions, and return behavior, leaving no significant gaps. The presence of an output schema negates the need for detailed return value descriptions.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds context about the UI resource URI but does not need to explain parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter setup.

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's function: it displays an interactive metrics panel as an embedded UI. It specifies that it includes a bar chart with a selector for two datasets ('Ventas' and 'Visitas') and references a specific UI resource, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating from any potential textual metric tools.

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 'CUÁNDO USARLO' section explicitly tells when to use the tool (when the user asks to see, visualize, graph, or compare business metrics, or asks for a panel/dashboard) and when not to use it (for simple text or single-number answers). This provides clear usage guidance and an explicit exclusion criterion.

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