svn_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('añadir') but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., files become tracked, changes are staged for commit), potential side effects (e.g., file locking, repository updates), or constraints (e.g., permissions, network requirements). This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Añadir archivos al control de versiones') that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify interactions like 'autoProps' vs 'noAutoProps'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 'Añadir archivos al control de versiones' clearly states the verb ('añadir') and resource ('archivos al control de versiones'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'svn_commit' or 'svn_update', which also involve version control operations, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., files must be untracked), contrast with siblings (e.g., 'svn_commit' for saving changes), or specify contexts (e.g., initial file addition). This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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