Verificar Conexion Ce3X

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description does restate 'solo lectura (Read-Only)', which is mildly redundant. It adds genuine value by specifying that it inspects the local filesystem 'sin alterar configuraciones ni registrar escrituras', clarifying the touch surface beyond 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?

Well front-loaded and clearly sectioned ('Cuándo usar', 'Comportamiento y efectos secundarios'), with the purpose stated first. Slightly padded by the read-only restatement that duplicates the annotations, but overall efficient.

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 return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. Purpose, invocation timing, and side effects are all present, leaving nothing critical for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter whose description already documents the autodetect default path. The tool description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb (verifica/testea) plus resource (instalación y conectividad con CE3X v3.2), and it enumerates the exact artifacts checked (ejecutables, motores climáticos, validador XML RelaxNG, escalas oficiales). Among siblings it is clearly the diagnostic/verification tool, distinguishable from transactional tools like generar_certificado_completo or gestionar_cache_ce3x.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: 'durante el arranque inicial o en pruebas de diagnóstico del entorno'. This is clear context but it names no alternative tool and states no when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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