Clips de las publicaciones

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the read-only nature, the description adds substantial behavioral context: moderation states (published, under review for 24-48 hours, rejected with reason and correction guidance) and the store-wide video map behavior when item_id is omitted. This goes well beyond 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded and organized around the item_id condition. It uses one long sentence with parenthetical details and emoji status markers, which is efficient though slightly heavy for a single sentence.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough detail about what is returned in both modes, including moderation outcomes and store video map prioritization. No critical invocation context appears 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for item_id by explaining that including it returns per-clip moderation status, while omitting it returns a store-wide video map, which supplements the schema's 'una publicación puntual; sin indicarlo, mapa de toda la tienda (hasta 10)'.

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 and resource: 'Consulta los Clips ... de tus publicaciones' and explains the two behavioral modes based on item_id. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like ml_subir_clip or ml_borrar_clip to differentiate the read-only consultation role.

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 clear context for when to pass item_id versus omit it: with item_id it shows each clip and moderation status; without it, it scans active publications and builds a store video map. It does not, however, explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ml_publicacion or ml_publicaciones.

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