crear_sesion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return values and suggests a workflow step, but it omits important details such as whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It does not explain what happens if participants are invalid or if the claim already exists.

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, with only two sentences that communicate the core purpose and a key workflow hint. It front-loads the primary action and return value. However, the second sentence could be integrated into the first or expanded with more context about limitations.

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 that there are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action and return but fails to explain parameter roles, usage constraints, or error scenarios. It meets the minimum viability but has clear gaps, especially for parameters like 'arbitro' and 'contexto'.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanations for individual parameters like 'claim', 'participantes', 'arbitro', 'contexto', or 'limite_turnos'. The description only hints at the overall purpose but does not clarify parameter meanings or constraints beyond the schema types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value.

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 it creates a debate session about a claim ('Crea una sesion de debate sobre un claim'), specifies the return value ('Devuelve sesion_id y el estado inicial'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the first required action ('El primer movimiento es proponer(actor)'). This differentiates it from other tools like 'mover' or 'declarar_relacion'.

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 when to use it (to start a debate) and offers a minimal hint about the next step ('El primer movimiento es proponer(actor)'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether participants must be existing users) or exclusion criteria.

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