auditar_offline

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the audit is read-only (does it modify the export or write a report?), whether it requires network access, whether it follows external links, or how results are presented; it only describes what will be detected.

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 naming the action, the targets, and the failure condition, with no filler. It would read slightly better with the offline condition moved earlier, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input side adequately but leaves the return value entirely undefined. An agent cannot predict whether it receives a list of offending URLs, a report file, or a pass/fail signal.

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% and the single parameter 'ruta_export' is already described as the 3DVista HTML5 export folder containing index.htm. The description adds no additional meaning about the path (relative vs absolute, what happens if the folder is not an export), 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?

The definition states a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('recursos de internet') and scopes it to the export directory, with concrete examples (YouTube, Google Maps, fuentes web, CDNs, enlaces) that make the target unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from potentially overlapping siblings such as 'validar_javascript' or 'analizar_tour'.

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?

The phrase 'fallaran si el recorrido se usa sin conexion' implicitly tells the agent this belongs to an offline-readiness workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related validation tasks, so the guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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