medir_calidad

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond them: the same-size requirement and the auto-rotation coupling ('if the result is auto-rotated, the original is auto-rotated too'). It doesn't describe the shape of the returned scores, which keeps it at 4.

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 core purpose and the metric scale are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence (size constraint, rotation note, alternative tool, example) earns its place. It is slightly dense with parenthetical scale values but not padded.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and metric names, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is that the return structure of the metrics isn't described, though the metric names partly imply 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the constraint that original/resultado must match in size and supplies a concrete example payload, which adds modest value but no syntax beyond what the schema states.

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-like framing ('How far an image is from its original') and names the exact metrics produced (SSIMULACRA 2, PSNR, SSIM), so the resource and operation are unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like comparar_formatos or analizar_imagen, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('They have to be the same size') and routes the agent to an alternative when the goal changes: 'To see where the loss is, ver_imagen with diferencias_con.' That is real when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance, though it lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion.

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