ver_imagen

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that every view spends context budget, and reveals the default downscale (768 px) and that a difference map replaces the image output when diferencias_con is set. It stops short of describing returned image format or size interaction between lado_max and zona.

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 what the tool returns and its three modes, then the cost caveat, then compact examples. No filler sentences; every clause either defines a mode or constrains usage.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers all modes and the interaction between them well enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: it does not clarify what happens if zona exceeds the image bounds or how lado_max is ignored when zona is given.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by showing three concrete call shapes that demonstrate how ruta, diferencias_con, and the nested zona object combine, making the mutual interaction of these parameters explicit rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns the image for viewing, with the three distinct modes spelled out (scaled-down view, 1:1 area crop, difference map against an original). An agent understands exactly what comes back. It does not name or contrast with siblings like analizar_imagen or comparar_formatos, so it falls short of 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?

"Ask for one only when it helps" plus the note that each view consumes context gives a real usage condition and cost trade-off. The worked examples map each mode to a call shape. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over analizar_imagen, comparar_formatos, or medir_calidad, which is the main selection risk given those siblings.

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