entrevista_estudio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose that the tool is read-only without arguments and mutating when both question and answer are provided. It does not cover permissions, error handling, overwrite behavior, or side-effect details, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 with no wasted words; the two behavioral modes are separated clearly by the semicolon.

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 3-parameter, 0-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. It could say more about base_dir behavior, validation, or persisted-profile semantics, but the essential invocation picture is 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 three parameters. The description adds only the high-level distinction that 'pregunta'+'respuesta' saves a key; it does not add format or constraint semantics 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+resource ('Entrevista de arranque del estudio') and describes two invocation modes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, but the purpose is clear and non-tautological.

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 explains the parameter-based behavior: without arguments it returns the questionnaire and current profile, with 'pregunta' and 'respuesta' it saves a profile key. This implies usage, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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