consultar_guia

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never says the tool only returns reference text (read-only, no side effects), what form the answer takes (long prose, markdown, structured sections), or how large a response to expect. It also fails to mention that the parameter is optional and what happens when it is omitted, nor the existence of the 'todo' option in the enum, which is the most consequential behavioral detail for a guide reader.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource ('Guia de 3DVista') before the topics. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with a verb, which slightly weakens directive force, 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 simple, low-risk tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the subject areas adequately but leaves out the default/optional behavior of the parameter, the 'todo' scope, and any hint about the shape of the returned guide. These gaps are modest but real for a tool whose only job is to return content.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the five listed subjects map one-to-one onto the enum values flujo, api, nombres, depurar and vr_offline, giving each value meaning. However it omits the 'todo' enum value entirely and says nothing about the default when the optional parameter is absent, leaving a real gap against the schema.

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 names the resource ('Guia de 3DVista') and enumerates the specific subject areas it covers (workflow, runtime API/internal calls, naming conventions, debugging, VR, offline use), so an agent can tell it is a documentation/reference lookup rather than an action tool. It lacks an explicit verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings like generar_codigo or planificar_skin_nativo, but the topic list is concrete enough to identify the 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?

The topic list implies when the guide is relevant (e.g. consult 'flujo' before planning, 'depurar' when debugging), but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing away from or toward any sibling tool. Usage is inferable from the enumerated subjects rather than stated.

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