cobertura_indexado

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.