Leyendo programación del PAC

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return payload ('ok', 'ses', 'procesos' with fields) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure modes for an entity/year with no PAC.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose line comes first, then Args and Devuelve sections. Slightly verbose in the header, but every section earns its place with no 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the parameter workflow and the return structure, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the behavioral/side-effect profile is thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'entidad' is tied to buscar_pac semantics, 'index' is explained as a 0-based row from buscar_pac's result (normally 0), and 'anio' is identified. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in caps ('LISTADO DE PROCESOS PROGRAMADOS del PAC') and clarifies it searches the PAC by entity/year and pulls the detail. It distinguishes itself from buscar_pac by describing the index parameter as a row from that sibling's result, though it never states outright how the two tools differ in purpose.

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?

Usage is implied through the workflow: 'index: fila del resultado de buscar_pac', meaning this tool is meant to run after buscar_pac. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives other than the implicit chaining.

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