unifier_project_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety trait: 'solo lectura' (read-only), which an annotation would normally provide. It also reveals the aggregation behavior (chaining multiple sources). It stops short of permissions, performance implications of chaining several lookups, or what the response contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with the read-only nature and the chained sources front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the term 'Encadena' is somewhat jargonistic and the sentence is dense enough that its scope is not immediately obvious.

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 composite tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return shape, whether 'bps' is optional, what record_fields does, or the cost/behavior of chaining several data sources — all things an agent needs to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters, but it only gestures at the 'bps' categories (costes, compromisos, cambios, facturas) — values already enumerated in the schema — while saying nothing about 'bpname' or 'record_fields'. The required 'project_number' parameter is likewise unexplained, leaving most parameter semantics unaddressed.

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 states a specific purpose: a read-only project health report that aggregates the Ficha 360, Cost Sheet status, work packages, and specified BPs. This clearly communicates it is a composite/rollup tool rather than a single-resource reader. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like unifier_project_autopilot_snapshot or unifier_risk_center, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Given the crowded sibling set (autopilot_snapshot, risk_center, read_shell_360, cost_sheet_budget), the description should say when this aggregate is preferred over those, but it offers no routing information. 'Que se indiquen' hints that BP selection is caller-driven but does not explain the condition.

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