detectar_sinergias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the output being a draft ('Trátalas como borrador'), includes an `evidencia` field, and admits the engine may miss synergies ('añade las que el motor no vea'). This adds significant context beyond a bare summary, though it does not mention potential side effects or permissions.

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 efficient and structured: it states the function, the return document, and the draft nature of results in three sentences. Each sentence adds value, though the phrase 'Resuelve el mazo' could be more precise.

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 coverage is partial: it explains output structure and behavior but lacks parameter guidance and explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the required `lista` parameter is left undefined, making the tool somewhat less complete for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter (`lista` and `nombre`). The tool's purpose implies `lista` is a deck list, but the description fails to state what to pass for `lista` or how `nombre` is used, leaving the agent without essential input guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Resuelve el mazo y busca patrones de interacción entre sus cartas' (solves the deck and looks for interaction patterns). It also specifies the output (a document with cards, curve, and candidate synergies), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'combos_conocidos' by emphasizing candidate discovery over known combos.

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 context: it is a draft generator for synergy candidates, telling the user to rewrite, discard, or add synergies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude scenarios, leaving the choice between this and sibling tools like 'combos_conocidos' or 'analizar' unaddressed.

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