Estado de la vigilancia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful caveat that it does not consult the API, implying the result is a local/state snapshot rather than live data. It also discloses the blind-spot concept that determines whether an empty result is trustworthy.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the actionable usage rule, then a short scope caveat. The opening enumeration is long but each item names a distinct piece of reported state, so little is wasted.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by listing the reported signals (last batch, pending batches, gaps, blindness, channel notices, unconfirmed gateway alerts, quota, active watcher). Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific resource (la vigilancia de procesos nuevos) and enumerates exactly what the report covers: último lote, lotes pendientes, huecos, ceguera, avisos por canal, alertas sin confirmar, cuota proyectada y si hay vigilante activo. This clearly separates it from siblings like activar_vigilancia (mutating setup), obtener_alertas_nuevas and confirmar_alertas.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition: consult it before asserting that 'there are no new processes', because silence is meaningless if surveillance is blind. It also scopes itself with 'No consulta la API'. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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