4.3 · Determinación del alcance del SIG

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.