Probar la conexión con ARCA

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and adds detail about what is tested (service status, login, points of sale). It also specifies the invoice types per service, which is extra context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read-only test that's acceptable.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the read-only nature, and efficiently packs the service details. No fluff or redundant information. Every phrase earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and service details. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a test tool that's likely just a status result. The environment parameter is a gap, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides enums for both parameters, but description coverage is 0%. The description explains the services (wsfe, wsfex) and their invoice types, which adds meaning for 'servicio'. However, it doesn't explain the 'entorno' parameter (homo vs prod) at all, so the semantics are incomplete. The agent knows the enum values but not their implications (e.g., homologation vs production environment).

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 it's a read-only test of service status, login, and points of sale, and specifies the invoice types for each service (wsfe: A, B, C; wsfex: Factura E). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle emission, confirmation, cancellation, etc. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 it's a connectivity test but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no exclusion or condition for when to use this tool instead of others, nor any mention of prerequisites. The read-only nature is clear, but no scenario guidance is provided.

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