render_guia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the return value ('Devuelve la ruta del archivo creado') and the input format, which is valuable. It does not detail side effects or error behaviors, but the key behavioral trait (output file path) is disclosed.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential details about input and output without wasted words.

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 tool with an output schema (per context signals), the description sufficiently covers the purpose, input, and return value. The missing explanation of `ruta` is a minor gap, but overall the description is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 description explains the main parameter `documento` as 'el JSON de `detectar_sinergias`', which is crucial. However, the `ruta` parameter is completely unexplained, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Genera la guía extensa en HTML a partir de un documento de análisis.' It uses a specific verb (genera) and resource (guía extensa en HTML), and distinguishes from sibling render tools by noting the input from detectar_sinergias.

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 context on when to use the tool by referring to the JSON from detectar_sinergias and suggesting the document should be 'idealmente ya reescrito por ti'. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like render_chuleta or render_mapa, so usage guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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