Extraer Activos

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the behavior of generating an .xlsx file and returning parsed rows, which is not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like file location handling, required configuration, or behavior when filasPreview=0.

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 efficiently states the function and primary behavior. It is front-loaded with the resource name and avoids any redundant detail.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It mentions the return format (parsed rows) but doesn't describe the structure of the response or interaction with the file system. The schema covers parameters well, but the description leaves gaps around prerequisites and return value details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it simply restates that a file is generated and rows are returned, which is already implied by the parameters like archivoSalida and filasPreview.

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 extracts assets ('Extraer Activos') and identifies the underlying SIIGO function (GETACT). It distinguishes from other getters by naming the resource (Activos), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like getmov or getext.

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. It doesn't mention if this is the right tool for asset extraction specifically, nor does it point to pushact for writing assets or other getters for different data types.

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