distribuir_objetos

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that spacing is equal and that the first and last objects do not move, but it omits whether this mutates positions, what happens on failure, permissions, or any return behavior.

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 that states the action, constraint, axis options, and key invariant with no wasted words.

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?

The core operation is adequately described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks usage alternatives, error/edge-case behavior, and clarification of object ordering. It is sufficient to attempt a call but not fully complete.

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 schema describes 'documento' and 'diapositiva', while the description adds meaning for the undocumented parameters: at least 3 objects, horizontal/vertical axis, equal spacing, and fixed endpoints. It could further clarify that 'primero' and 'último' correspond to the order in the 'objetos' array.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Reparte ... objetos' with equal spacing in horizontal or vertical direction. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'alinear_objetos', so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'alinear_objetos' or 'mover_objeto'. The mention of '3 o más objetos' and axis options are constraints, not usage guidance.

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