Organizar Carpeta Visita

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it is a write/organize operation that moves files within the indicated folder without deleting content. It does not discuss permissions, error handling, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with what the tool does, then clearly sections 'Cuándo usar' and 'Comportamiento y efectos secundarios.' Every sentence is relevant and the structure aids quick scanning.

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?

Given the simple input schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and side effects. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ruta_carpeta fully. The description mentions 'carpeta indicada' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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: creates a standard 5-folder structure and automatically classifies existing files by extension and metadata. It even names the canonical folders, making the operation unambiguous and easy to distinguish from sibling tools like auditar_carpeta_visita.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: at the start of the documentary workflow after downloading visit files, and before certification run auditar_carpeta_visita. It provides clear sequencing context but does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for the same task.

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