render_chuleta

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

The description explicitly states the return value ('Devuelve la ruta del archivo'), which provides some behavioral transparency. However, there are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose side effects and prerequisites. It does not mention whether a file is written to disk, whether existing files are overwritten, or any access or formatting requirements, leaving significant 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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It immediately states the action and the return value with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details, achieving maximum efficiency for its length.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description fails to explain the two parameters or any usage context. The output schema is indicated as existing, but the description still must clarify parameters and prerequisites, which it does not. This leaves the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has two parameters ('ruta' and 'documento') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or acceptable values for either parameter, leaving the agent to guess that 'documento' is the source document and 'ruta' is the output path. This is a critical omission for parameter understanding.

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 generates a double-sided A4 printable cheat sheet and returns the file path. The verb 'Genera' and specific resource 'chuleta imprimible de dos caras A4' make the core function clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like render_guia or render_mapa, which likely have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render_guia or render_mapa. There are no described prerequisites, input requirements, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The description only explains what it does, not when to use it.

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