Auditar Carpeta Visita

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description confirms no file modification (largely redundant with readOnlyHint) but adds genuinely new behavior: it emits interactive progress to FastMCP and produces a document-health report, which is not derivable from the 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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled usage and behavior sections, so an agent can scan it quickly. The header scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed for a single-parameter tool, but every sentence carries relevant content.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, usage, and side effects. For a one-parameter read-only audit tool this is complete enough to invoke 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?

Only one parameter (ruta_carpeta) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add format, path-convention, or validation details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (audita) and resource (carpeta de visita), enumerates the inspected content types (croquis, notas, planos PDF, fotos, fichas) and names the concrete outcome (informe de salud documental). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling certificar_desde_carpeta_visita, which it references by name.

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?

Explicit 'Cuándo usar' section tells the agent to invoke it before certificar_desde_carpeta_visita, and states the purpose of doing so (detecting mandatory omissions like facility photos, plans, cadastral reference). The condition that selects this tool over its closest sibling is spelled out.

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