Expediente temporal de investigación

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the env-var gating, the temporary in-memory mode with TTL expiry, the persistence mode via EXPEDIENTES_DIR that survives restarts, and per-action side effects (crear returns id, exportar writes markdown). It still omits error behavior (e.g. agregar to a missing id) and any permission details beyond the activation flag.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then configuration, then the action semantics, so the reader gets the gist immediately. The prose is dense but every clause adds operational information; only the env-var detail is slightly buried mid-sentence.

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 stateful, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence, lifespan and the return of each action, which is what the agent most needs. Remaining gaps are minor: exact shape of 'leer' output and failure modes are unspecified.

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 id, ruta, campo, texto and accion, including their per-action applicability. The description largely restates these constraints (id required for agregar/leer/exportar, ruta only for exportar) and adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the concrete resource (un expediente) and enumerates the four specific verbs it supports (crear, agregar, leer, exportar), each with its effect explained. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling set, which are all stateless search/lookup tools.

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 real usage context: the tool is disabled by default (EXPEDIENTES=1) and 'agregar' only works against an 'expediente YA CREADO'. However, it never frames when an agent should reach for this tool rather than, say, just answering, nor does it name any exclusion.

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