Correr un script de solo lectura

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior: no shell is spawned, absolute paths and `..` are rejected, and anything that writes is refused. It also discloses the response shape (exit code + trimmed/truncated output), which matters for a code-execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying a distinct payload (what it returns, default discovery behavior, when to use it, and the safety envelope). The routing constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose, with zero filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is optional, yet the description still summarizes it. Combined with the sandbox restrictions, write-redirect, and default behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke this safely without opening the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: omitting `nombre` enumerates the available scripts, and it reinforces the path constraints (`..`, relative only) that the `args` schema only partially states. The `detalle` enum behavior is left to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 concrete verb+resource: it runs read-only manifest scripts and returns exit code plus trimmed output. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tooling by naming Bash and `correr_escritura`, so the agent knows exactly which capability this is and which it is not.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Úsala en vez de Bash para lo que cubre un script' tells when to prefer this over the general-purpose alternative, and the mention that writes go through `correr_escritura` gives the negative case. The 'sin `nombre` los enumera' clause further tells the agent how to invoke it when it just wants discovery.

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