Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• buscar_por_tipoB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the listing action and the no-graph-query constraint, without disclosing output format, pagination, or any side effects. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but that is not explicit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool is simple, with one enum parameter and no output schema, so the description is not grossly incomplete. However, with overlapping siblings and no behavioral annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing the return format and when to choose this over listar_exports or buscar_simbolo.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has one required parameter 'tipo' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It references 'un tipo concreto' but does not enumerate or explain the accepted values, leaving the enum to do the semantic work.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses the verb 'Lista' and names the resource 'símbolos exportados', scoped by 'tipo concreto'. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'listar_exports' or 'buscar_simbolo'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'sin usar un lenguaje de consulta de grafos' implies a simpler alternative to graph-query approaches, but no sibling tool is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given. Overlapping siblings make this gap noticeable.

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

• listar_exportsB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 the core function and does not mention that it works only on indexed files, what happens if the path is invalid, whether it requires a recent reindex, or what the output looks like.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, begins with the verb, and clearly states the operation and scope. It is appropriately front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  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 output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not specify return format, error behavior, or constraints on the path. Given the minimal complexity, it mostly suffices, but leaves edge cases unmanaged.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema fully documents ruta_relativa with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of 'fichero concreto' but no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the operation: it lists exported symbols from a specific file in the indexed root, using the verb 'Lista' and a concrete resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like buscar_simbolo, but the scoping to 'un fichero concreto' makes its purpose reasonably distinct.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of sibling tools or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the description's purpose, which is not enough for an agent deciding between listar_exports and tools like buscar_simbolo or buscar_referencias.

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

• buscar_simboloB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool's purpose. It does not reveal whether it returns a file path, line number, multiple locations, or what happens for missing symbols, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's runtime behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It clearly conveys the operation without over-explaining.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but lacks detail about the return format and edge cases. It doesn't explain the result structure (e.g., file path, line number), which an agent would need to correctly consume the output, but the simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already documents the single parameter 'nombre' as the exact symbol name (100% coverage). The description adds context by specifying the symbol is an exported TypeScript/React symbol, which clarifies the parameter's domain, but this is nominal added value beyond the schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states a specific action and resource: it finds where an exported TypeScript/React symbol is defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_texto (text search) and buscar_referencias (references) by its focus on definition location, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The intended use is implied by the description: use it when you need to locate the definition of an exported symbol. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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

• obtener_fragmentoB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key 200-line limit and the 'literal lines' behavior, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens when the requested range exceeds the file or the cap, nor any error behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, object, and a critical constraint with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and line limit, yet it omits details about return formatting, handling of oversized ranges, or errors, leaving the agent to infer these behaviors.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%: all three parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (e.g., inclusivity of line_fin, 1-based line_inicio). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and resource ('líneas literales de un fichero indexado'), making the core function clear. It is reasonably distinct from sibling search/reference tools, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions beyond the inherent implication that it retrieves literal file lines.

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

• resumen_arquitecturaA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 the summarizing action; it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it depends on the index being built, or what the result looks like beyond grouping by type.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, tightly written sentence that puts the action first and includes the key scope and grouping detail. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or irrelevant background.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter read-only overview tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the input domain, the grouping behavior, and the nature of the result. It falls slightly short by not mentioning prerequisites such as requiring an existing index or clarifying the exact output shape, but no output schema exists to fill that gap.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters needing clarification. The baseline of 4 applies because the parameter surface is empty and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Resume') and identifies a concrete resource: the indexed folder tree plus exported symbols grouped by type. This grouping and the mention of the folder tree distinguish it from siblings like listar_exports or cobertura_indexado without needing to inspect other schemas.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as listar_exports or buscar_por_tipo. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'Resume', leaving the agent to infer when a high-level architecture summary is the right choice.

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

• buscar_referenciasA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only listing and constrains it to imported/used locations of an exported symbol. Still, it does not disclose the output shape, whether an index must be up to date, or how unknown/non-exported symbols are handled.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter query tool. It loses a point only because the brevity leaves no room for usage caveats or output expectations, though those are partially captured by other dimensions.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a one-parameter read-only search tool, the description is adequate: it states the input type (exact exported symbol name) and a high-level result (a list of places). However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what a 'place' is (file path, line number, snippet) or whether the index must be current, so completeness is only partial.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema already documents 'nombre' as the exact symbol name with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the symbol must be exported and that matches are places where it is imported or used, helping the agent choose a valid argument.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise object ('los lugares donde un símbolo exportado se importa o se usa'), clearly identifying the tool as a reference/usage finder. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like buscar_simbolo (definition lookup) or buscar_texto (raw text search), even without naming them explicitly.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the use case: find all import/use locations of an exported symbol. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over buscar_simbolo, trazar_camino, or listar_exports, nor does it give exclusion criteria or mention any needed preconditions beyond the symbol being exported.

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

• cobertura_indexadoA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys a read-only comparison and explains exclusions, but it does not disclose whether an index must already exist, whether the comparison triggers any side effects, or what 'exclusion' precisely means. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Compara todos los ficheros .ts/.tsx bajo la raíz con los indexados') and immediately states the value-add ('explica cada exclusión'). No wasted words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate: it explains what is compared and what the output will explain. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps around output format, the meaning of 'exclusion', and whether an index must already exist before calling. These are clear but not critical omissions for such a simple tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all necessary parameter information. The description adds meaning by defining the tool's operation, and there are no parameter semantics that need further explanation. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Compara'), a clear resource (all .ts/.tsx files under the root), and an explicit outcome (explains each exclusion). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like reindexar, which would rebuild the index rather than audit it.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The intended use is implied: the agent should call this when there is a need to compare indexed files against the actual file tree and understand exclusions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as having an existing index.

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

• reindexarA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the rebuild is explicit and confined to the in-memory index, which is meaningful context. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, duration, or whether this is required before using sibling search tools.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes only the necessary scope ('en memoria') and timing ('tras editar el proyecto').

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter maintenance command with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is rebuilt, where it is rebuilt, and when to call it. Missing return/status details are a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and lack of structured output.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the zero-parameter baseline applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Reconstruye') and a specific resource ('el índice en memoria'), and adds a clear trigger ('tras editar el proyecto'). It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so differentiation relies on the action itself rather than a direct comparison.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives a clear usage context: run it after editing the project. It does not state when-not-to-use it or name alternatives, but the trigger condition is concrete enough for an agent to understand when this tool is relevant.

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

• trazar_caminoA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the algorithm ('en anchura' / breadth-first), the traversal relation ('a través de sus referencias'), and the depth limit ('hasta 6 saltos'). However, it does not disclose the return format or behavior when no path exists within the hop limit.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Busca en anchura') and packs all key constraints (reference traversal, 6-hop limit) with no filler. Every word contributes to the definition.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The absence of an output schema makes the description responsible for specifying return values, but it does not state whether the tool returns an ordered path, a boolean, or null when no path exists. The inputs and search algorithm are clear, yet the missing output semantics is a significant gap for correct result interpretation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100%: 'desde' and 'hasta' are already documented as initial and final exported symbols. The description adds relational meaning by clarifying that the tool seeks a path through references between these two endpoints, which the schema parameter descriptions alone do not convey.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific operation: breadth-first search for a path between symbols through their references, up to 6 hops. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like buscar_referencias or buscar_simbolo, which handle single-symbol or reference lookups rather than endpoint-to-endpoint path tracing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description is a functional statement and does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as buscar_referencias or buscar_simbolo. The intended use case (finding a connection between two exported symbols) is implied by the semantics but no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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

• buscar_textoA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No hay anotaciones, así que la descripción asume toda la carga. Informa sobre el alcance (símbolos exportados), el modo de coincidencia (palabras del nombre o JSDoc), la tolerancia a erratas y una limitación clave (no es semántica). No detalla formato de salida ni estado de indexación, pero el comportamiento esencial del buscador queda bien delimitado.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Es una única frase compacta y bien organizada: primero la acción y el objeto, luego la tolerancia a erratas y finalmente la exclusión de búsqueda semántica. No hay relleno ni información redundante con el esquema.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Para una herramienta con un solo parámetro, sin esquema de salida y sin anotaciones, la descripción es suficiente para invocarla correctamente: define qué se busca, sobre qué campos y con qué tipo de coincidencia. Sería más completa si aclarara el comportamiento con múltiples palabras, mayúsculas o la dependencia del índice, pero estos son detalles secundarios.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  El esquema ya cubre al 100% el parámetro 'consulta' con 'Texto o palabras que buscar'. La descripción añade significado extra al explicar contra qué se compara ese texto: palabras del nombre o del JSDoc, y que admite erratas pequeñas. Eso va más allá de la definición del esquema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  La descripción comienza con un verbo concreto ('Busca'), especifica el recurso ('símbolos exportados') y define el criterio de búsqueda ('por palabras del nombre o del JSDoc'). Además, la aclaración 'no es búsqueda semántica' ayuda a distinguirla de otras herramientas de búsqueda del mismo grupo.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Queda claro que la herramienta sirve para búsquedas textuales aproximadas con tolerancia a erratas y que no debe usarse para búsqueda semántica. Sin embargo, no menciona explícitamente alternativas como buscar_simbolo o cuándo preferirlas, por lo que no hay un enrutamiento completo entre herramientas hermanas.

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