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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'crea' implies a write operation, it fails to mention critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing files, error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Crea un archivo nuevo en el sistema.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of a file creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. This makes it incomplete for a mutation tool in this context.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('nombre' as file name with extension, 'contenido' as file content). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 'Crea un archivo nuevo en el sistema' clearly states the verb 'crea' (creates) and the resource 'archivo nuevo' (new file), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'editar_archivo' (edit file) or 'eliminar_archivo' (delete file) by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing write permissions or specific contexts, and does not reference sibling tools like 'editar_archivo' or 'leer_archivo' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'sobrescribe el contenido' (overwrites content), indicating destructive behavior, but fails to address critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), permission requirements, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key behavior ('sobrescribe el contenido'). It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on error conditions, permissions, response format, and how it differs from siblings beyond the basic edit action. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('nombre' as the file name and 'nuevo_contenido' as the new content). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as file path formats or content constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Edita el contenido') and target resource ('un archivo existente'), distinguishing it from siblings like crear_archivo (create) and leer_archivo (read). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mover_archivo (move) or eliminar_archivo (delete) beyond the edit action, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crear_archivo or mover_archivo, nor does it mention prerequisites such as file existence or permissions. It simply states the action without contextual usage instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Elimina' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are confirmation prompts, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive file deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success message, error handling), whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, or how it differs from moving files. Given the complexity and risk of file deletion, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'nombre' (name of file to delete). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path requirements, file format restrictions, or wildcard support. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Elimina' - deletes) and resource ('un archivo del sistema' - a file from the system), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mover_archivo' (move file) or 'editar_archivo' (edit file) beyond the basic verb distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'mover_archivo' (move file) and 'editar_archivo' (edit file), there's no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus moving or editing, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), permissions required, output format (e.g., text, binary), or any side effects, which is inadequate for a tool with mutation potential.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details like constraints or alternatives, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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?

Given the complexity of file operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the parameter 'nombre' fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as file path conventions or encoding details, resulting in the baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('Lee el contenido') and resource ('de un archivo existente'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'listar_archivos' or 'editar_archivo' beyond the basic verb, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like file existence, compare to 'listar_archivos' for metadata vs. content, or specify scenarios like reading text vs. binary files, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists files but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list of names, metadata), pagination, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context, making it incomplete for reliable agent operation despite the low complexity.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Lista') and resource ('archivos en el sandbox'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'leer_archivo' (which might read file contents), so it's not fully specific about scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'leer_archivo' or 'crear_archivo'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the sandbox must exist or be accessible, or any limitations on usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action ('Mueve o renombra') but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or affects file metadata. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 description is perfectly concise - a single Spanish phrase that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 file mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether renaming is just moving within same directory, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The context demands more completeness for safe agent use.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema descriptions clearly explain 'origen' as source path/name and 'destino' as destination path/name. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation without description enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Mueve o renombra') and resource ('un archivo'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'editar_archivo' or 'crear_archivo', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from siblings like 'editar_archivo' (which might modify content) or 'crear_archivo' (which creates new files).

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