unifier_read_shell_360

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully address it: 'No realiza escrituras ni expone campos sensibles' substitutes for a readOnlyHint and a data-sensitivity disclosure, and the two-stage validate-then-query chain reveals internal behavior. It still omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior when validation fails.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: what it is, the execution order, and the safety profile. The purpose is front-loaded before the workflow detail, with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers identity, workflow, and safety. However, it does not explain the shape of the returned 'metadatos activos' or behavior on invalid project_number, leaving gaps for an agent to call and interpret results confidently.

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?

One parameter (project_number) with 0% schema description coverage means the description must compensate. It names project_number and explains that it is validated against V1 admin/projectshell before use, adding role-based meaning, but gives no format, constraints, or example despite the string's min/max length bounds.

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 verb+resource: a chained read operation producing a 'Ficha 360' for a single shell, with the exact two-step sequence (validate via V1 admin/projectshell, then query V2 admin/shell). It is distinguishable from siblings like unifier_list_shells (list vs single-entity 360 read), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the workflow description (it is the tool for retrieving a full 360 view of one shell), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is for single-shell deep reads rather than enumeration.

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