Diagnosticar el entorno de SIIGO

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it does not execute EXCELSIIGO.exe or affect accounting. It adds context about the environment components checked (Windows, Excel, desktop session, credentials, companies, path length limits), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and packs essential information without fluff. Every clause adds value: the list of checks, the explicit non-actions, and the just-in-time usage instruction.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to guide an agent: it explains what is checked, what is not touched, and when to invoke it. It does not describe the return format, but for a diagnostic tool with one optional parameter this is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single optional parameter, which already has a clear description ('Descubrir las empresas, que implica escanear discos y tarda mas'). The tool description does not add any further meaning about parameters, but this is unnecessary given the schema fully documents them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Comprueba') and names the resource ('este equipo pueda ejecutar SIIGO') while enumerating the exact checks performed. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating what it does NOT do ('No ejecuta EXCELSIIGO.exe ni toca la contabilidad'), setting it apart from sibling tools that run or modify SIIGO.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Ejecutela primero cuando una funcion falle sin una explicacion clara.' It also clarifies the tool's safe, non-invasive nature through exclusions, effectively telling the agent when not to worry about side effects and when to choose this diagnostic tool over others.

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