consultar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool returns a confidence value based on observed relationships or transitive closure logic. This gives insight into how results are computed. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects) or mention any authorization requirements, which would be helpful for safety.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output semantics. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('confianza de la relacion') and uses a clear formatting for confidence levels. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief usage example or structural separation of purpose and output.

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 (2 required string params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential output semantics. However, it lacks context about the system (e.g., sessions, relationship types) and does not explain whether 'a' and 'b' must be previously defined or if the tool works independently. Sibling tools like 'crear_sesion' hint at session dependency, which is unaddressed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the properties 'a' and 'b' have no type or usage hints in the schema. The description calls them 'terminos' (terms) but does not specify what kind of terms (e.g., entity IDs, strings, session-related variables). This leaves ambiguity about valid values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's bare structure.

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: checking the confidence of a relationship between two terms. It explains the three possible confidence levels (1.0 observed, 0.5 inferred by transitive closure, 0.0 no relationship), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'declarar_relacion' (which declares a relationship) and 'procesar_consulta' (a broader query tool). The verb is implicit but the resource is well-defined.

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 implies the tool is used to obtain relationship confidence for two terms, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'estado' or 'stats'. No exclusions or contextual triggers are provided. The usage context (e.g., requirement of an active session) is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool's purpose alone.

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