verificar_entorno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states it checks three things and reports what's missing, implying a read-only diagnostic action. However, it does not explicitly claim 'does not modify anything,' which would be ideal for a diagnostic tool; the non-destructive nature is implied rather than stated.

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 starts with a clear purpose, then usage, then a numbered list of the three checks. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main diagnostic statement. The list adds necessary detail, but it could be slightly tighter by combining the third point with the second or trimming extra words.

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 no parameters and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by the context signal), the description covers the essential usage guidance and the scope of checks. It could benefit from explicitly stating what the output looks like (e.g., a report), but the output schema presumably covers that. The definition is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. This 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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnostica') and enumerates the three system components it checks (Bridge FastAPI, Loop JS, canvas state). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnosticar_red, which focuses on network diagnostics rather than environment readiness.

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?

It explicitly states 'Úsala SIEMPRE al principio de una sesión' and also when a command doesn't seem to take effect on the canvas. This gives unambiguous when-to-use guidance without needing to infer from context.

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