resumen_arquitectura

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.