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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive content rules (what the clause document must contain and the ISO 9001-only exclusion constraint). It omits the operationally important behavior: that the tool writes files to disk (Markdown and/or .docx, salidaPath/exportarDocx/plantillaPath) and returns paths — side effects an agent should know before calling.

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 opens with the verb and deliverable and then packs the content requirements into a parenthetical. Efficient, though the trailing "Admite documento del cliente, modo generar|actualizar y formato casa|cliente" largely repeats enum values already documented in the schema.

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 15-parameter document generator with no output schema, the description should say what the call produces (Markdown text? a .docx path?) and that most parameters are optional with defaults. It covers the document's substance well but leaves the output contract to be inferred from individual parameter descriptions.

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 100% and the parameter descriptions are unusually detailed (modo, formato, plantillaPath, documentoClientePath), so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuine cross-parameter rule — exclusiones apply only to ISO 9001 with justification — but otherwise only echoes the modo/formato/documento enums already in the schema.

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 and deliverable ("Redacta la Determinación del Alcance del requisito 4.3") and enumerates the required content blocks: declaración formal, límites físicos y organizacionales, procesos. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (FODA, PESTEL, partes interesadas, mapa de procesos), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It signals that a client document can be supplied and offers generar|actualizar and casa|cliente choices, plus a real usage rule ("exclusiones solo para ISO 9001 con justificación"). However it never says when to pick generar vs. actualizar, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that actualizar/cliente require a document) — that guidance lives only in the schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that output is tailored to sector and Peruvian legal framework and that client documents and modes are supported, but it does not explain file-writing side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or error conditions for a generation tool with 15 parameters.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key accepted inputs and modes. There is no filler, and the structure makes the main action immediately clear.

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 schema is rich and fully described, which covers parameter semantics. However, for a complex generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention expected output format, file side effects, or important operational constraints beyond the brief mention of client documents and modes.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions documentoCliente/documentoClientePath, modo generar|actualizar and formato casa|cliente, but this largely repeats what the schema provides rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 and resource: genera la Matriz de Contexto (cuestiones internas y externas) for requirement 4.1 of Anexo SL. The resource is clearly differentiated from sibling tools such as FODA, PESTEL, partes interesadas, alcance and mapa de procesos.

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 usage by tying the tool to requirement 4.1 and mentioning generar|actualizar and casa|cliente modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling contexto_foda_4_1, contexto_pestel_4_1 or other contexto tools.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it produces sector/norm-specific output, accepts client documents, and supports modes/formats, but does not explain side effects like file writes to salidaPath, whether existing files are overwritten, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and deliverables. The second sentence is a somewhat dense list of inputs but still earns its place by surfacing the client-document and mode/format options.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives purpose and input options but omits how outputs are returned, the default output location, and permission/auth expectations, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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%, so enums and all 15 parameters are already documented. The description only echoes 'documentoCliente/documentoClientePath', 'generar|actualizar', and 'casa|cliente' without adding format or behavior detail beyond the schema.

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 two concrete deliverables: the FODA/SWOT analysis of requirement 4.1 and the crossed TOWS strategy matrix. This clearly differentiates it from the PESTEL and stakeholders 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?

Mentions supported 'modo generar|actualizar' and 'formato casa|cliente' options and the client-document input, which hints at usage contexts. But it never says when to choose this tool over contexto_pestel_4_1 or when to prefer generar vs actualizar beyond the enum labels echoed from the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state the deliverable's content (SIPOC sections). However it says nothing about side effects such as writing files to salidaPath, the default Markdown output, the docx/plantilla variants, or permission/grounding behavior; those facts exist only in the parameter descriptions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the artifact and requirement ID, with the capability list second. No filler or repetition.

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 15-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the default output format (Markdown), that exports produce file paths to open in Word, and how documentoCliente vs documentoClientePath vs plantillaPath interact. Much of this is rescued by the rich schema, but the description alone is only minimally sufficient.

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% and the parameter docs are detailed (enum meanings, defaults, alternatives between documentoCliente and documentoClientePath). The description merely restates the modo and formato enums and adds no format, precedence, or interaction guidance beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Genera el Mapa de Procesos') and pins it to ISO requirement 4.4, which is what separates it from the sibling 4.1/4.2/4.3 tools. The SIPOC field list adds specificity about what the artifact contains, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings it replaces.

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 second sentence enumerates the supported options (client document, modo generar|actualizar, formato casa|cliente) but never states when an agent should pick one over the other or when not to call it. The conditions ('requiere un documento') live only in the schema, leaving usage rules implicit here.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the generar/actualizar and casa/cliente behaviors and the legal-requirement marking, but never states that the tool writes output files or generates a .docx, nor any prerequisites beyond the modes. Moderate transparency gap for a mutating generator.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no waste; the resource and clause are stated first, then the supported modes. Efficient and readable, if a bit terse given the tool's complexity.

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 15-parameter document-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on the mutating behavior and output artifacts (files, .docx, template paths). The rich schema compensates for parameter details, but the overall narrative is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters with enums and defaults. The description reinforces the key selector parameters (modo, formato, documento del cliente), adding slight context over the schema baseline of 3.

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 ('Matriz de Partes Interesadas del requisito 4.2'), and clarifies the SIG clause. The clause number and resource name distinguish it from siblings like contexto_foda_4_1, though it never explicitly references alternatives.

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?

Mentions the supported options (documento del cliente, modo generar|actualizar, formato casa|cliente) but only implies when to choose each. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or routing to sibling tools, so usage must be inferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the Peruvian legal anchoring and the sector-specific grounding, but says nothing about side effects — that the tool writes files to disk (salidaPath, .docx export), what it returns, or whether generation is deterministic. A significant gap remains for a document-writing tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads what is produced and its scope, the second covers the optional inputs and modes. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 15-parameter document-generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what comes back (Markdown? file path? both) and how exportarDocx/plantillaPath affect the result. Those behaviors are only partially hinted at via the schema, leaving the agent to infer the return contract.

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% across all 15 parameters, so the schema already documents modo, formato, documentoCliente, documentoClientePath and the rest in detail. The description only echoes three of those parameter names without adding syntax, defaults, or precedence rules beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a well-defined artifact (Análisis PESTEL) scoped to requirement 4.1's external issues, anchored to the Peruvian framework and the sector. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like contexto_foda_4_1 or contexto_cuestiones_4_1 without opening any schema.

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 names the operational modes (generar|actualizar) and formats (casa|cliente), and notes that a client document is accepted, which implies the correct invocation context. However, it never says when to choose PESTEL over the sibling FODA/cuestiones tools, nor restates the dependency that 'actualizar'/'cliente' require a document — that constraint only lives in the schema.

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