resumen_cartera

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It credibly explains that risk is computed deterministically by a rules engine, the AI only drafts the brief and never decides risk, and the AI provider is switchable via LLM_PROVIDER. This meaningfully prevents an agent from assuming the tool performs risk assessment itself.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph provides crucial behavioral context about determinism and the AI provider. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the simple input schema with one documented parameter, and the important behavioral clarifications, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention data freshness or integration with estado_datos, but this is not essential for a correct call.

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 100% for the single 'rfcs' parameter, including the maximum of 500 items. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's output as an executive summary in natural language for a portfolio of RFCs, which is a specific resource and deliverable. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'genera' or 'resume', and does not directly name sibling tools for differentiation, though the purpose is distinct from the listed siblings.

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 usage context is implied by the first sentence: this tool is for summarizing a portfolio of RFCs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verificar_rfc, verificar_lote, or buscar_nombre, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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