4.1 · Análisis PESTEL del entorno

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.