exportar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the artifact type and destination folder (Descargas) for each mode, which is useful. However it omits whether files overwrite existing ones, what the tool returns (path? confirmation?), and any size or permission constraints on a write-to-disk operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the three modes. Every clause earns its place by disambiguating the enum values, and there is no filler.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the formats and the destination folder but never says what the call returns (e.g., a file path or confirmation) or how failures surface. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent that needs to report results.

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 coverage is 50%: 'hora' is documented in the schema, but the enum 'formato' has no schema description. The description compensates well by explaining exactly what each of the three values produces, adding real meaning beyond the bare enum list.

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?

States a specific verb (genera) and resource (archivo en la carpeta Descargas) and then enumerates the three export modes with what each contains, so an agent immediately understands what the tool produces. No sibling tool overlaps with file export, so differentiation is implicit but clear.

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?

'Para usar fuera del chat' gives a clear usage context: this is the tool for getting study material out of the chat into external formats. It does not state when-not to use it or name any alternative, but none of the siblings perform exports, so the risk of misselection is low.

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