Extraer empleados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it generates an .xlsx file and returns the first rows parsed—a side effect and a return behavior not fully captured by annotations. It does not contradict the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the parsing format or potential file handling edge cases, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Extraer empleados'), and every clause earns its place: the first names the function, the second declares the output and return format. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it generates an Excel file and returns a preview of the parsed rows, which helps interpret parameters like filasPreview and archivoSalida. It does not explain the return structure in detail, but given the rich schema descriptions, this is not a significant gap. A 4 is appropriate; a 5 would require full disclosure of the return format.

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%, with each of the 14 parameters having its own detailed explanation. The tool description itself does not explain parameters, but the schema does, so the baseline score of 3 for high coverage applies.

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 provides a specific verb ('Extraer') and a clear resource ('empleados'), and it explicitly references the underlying SIIGO function (GETEMPL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like siigo_getmov or siigo_getlis. It also states the output behavior (generates .xlsx, returns parsed rows), making the purpose fully clear.

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 does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion scenarios. There is no reference to sibling tools, and the only implied usage is that it extracts employees, which is not enough to warrant a '3'.

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