contexto_primado

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 mentions that the context is bounded by a budget and that observed relations come first, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the term is missing. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the description alone is insufficient.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and key details. While it could benefit from a bit more structure, it efficiently communicates the core idea without waste.

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 two parameters, existence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, the meaning of 'activation neighborhood', or how the budget is applied. An agent would need to infer too much, making the description insufficient for robust selection and invocation.

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, so the description must compensate. It associates 'presupuesto' with a budget limit and 'termino' as the term to query, adding context beyond the schema's bare types. However, it does not specify the format of 'termino' or what the budget limits (e.g., number of relations, tokens), leaving partial clarity.

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 retrieves associative context of a term for injection into a model, mentioning observed relations and activation neighborhood bounded by budget. It distinguishes itself from navigation ('separate mechanism from navigation'), providing a specific verb-resource combination. However, the exact output format and meaning of 'activation neighborhood' remain vague.

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 only hints that this tool is not for navigation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like 'consultar', 'declarar_relacion', or 'mover'. No scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent without clear usage guidance.

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