exportETPAsExcel

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes the use of a template and library. It does not indicate if the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or handles errors (e.g., missing configPath).

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it lacks necessary details. It is concise in length but incomplete in content, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what ETP is, what the configPath expects (file path? directory?), and the output format behavior (e.g., overwrite or create new). This information is minimal for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'configPath' or 'outputFileName'. Both parameters are strings with no additional context, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 action 'Exporta el ETP a Excel' (exports ETP to Excel) and mentions the technology used (exceljs y plantilla configurada). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'exportETPAsWord' by specifying the output format, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exportETPAsWord. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or common scenarios described.

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