comprobar_escucha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'corrects' an auditory response, but does not explain whether it evaluates, provides feedback, modifies data, or requires specific permissions. The lack of detail about side effects or expected behavior is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb, but it is too brief to convey essential details. While brevity is good, the description would benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not address expected return values, parameter usage, or operational context. The description only provides a vague hint of the tool's purpose, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has three parameters (audio, concepto, respuesta) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they relate to the correction process. With no guidance from the description, the agent cannot infer the meaning or format of the parameters.

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 'Corrige una respuesta de discriminación auditiva' clearly states the tool's action (correcting) and resource (an auditory discrimination response). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like comprobar_pronunciacion, which focuses on pronunciation, though it could be more explicit about the input-output relationship.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting it over similar tools like corregir_respuesta.

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