Diagnóstico del Sistema UCA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds real value by naming the four probe categories, which tells the agent this reaches out over the network and inspects environment state. It does not disclose what a result looks like, whether failures are returned as errors or as payload fields, or whether it depends on an existing session.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the operational verb and then the checked areas in a compact list. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument tool, though the bare noun-phrase enumeration leaves no room for the result-interpretation hint that would justify a 5.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent receives from a diagnostic run — a pass/fail per category, error strings, free text? That is absent, which matters for a tool whose entire value is interpreting its own output. Annotations cover the safety side, so the gap is narrow but real.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies: there is no parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly does not invent any. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Audita') and enumerates the exact resources under test: connectivity, encrypted session state, graphical environment, storage paths. That is concrete enough to predict the tool's scope without opening any schema. It loses the top mark only because it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling (uca_iniciar_sesion), so an agent must infer that this is validation-of-environment rather than authentication itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use signal at all: no trigger conditions ('when login fails, or before first session'), no exclusions, and no pointer to the alternative (uca_iniciar_sesion) when the actual need is to log in. The agent is left to guess whether this tool should be called proactively or only after an error.

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