Buscar fuentes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it searches installed fonts and returns name/family/style, implying a read-only lookup, but says nothing about pagination, the 'limit' parameter's behavior, defaults, or what an empty query returns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose, scope and downstream usage are all stated efficiently.

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 simple 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, match fields and downstream use. The only real gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter and lack of result-set behavior.

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 50%: 'query' is documented with examples in the schema, but 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does enrich the query semantics by stating it matches on PostScript name, family and style, partially compensating.

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 (busca) and resource (fuentes instaladas), and even lists the returned attributes: PostScript name, family and style. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any other search/list tool.

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?

'para usar en ps_add_text' implies the workflow context (find a font name before adding text), which is genuinely useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of defaults, and no alternatives.

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