Expediente temporal de investigación

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: gating by env var, in-memory records expiring per EXPEDIENTES_TTL_MS, disk persistence via EXPEDIENTES_DIR surviving restarts, and non-destructive export semantics (existing file is never overwritten, a numeric-suffixed sibling is written and the final path returned). This is exactly the operational context annotations alone cannot convey.

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 purpose and the key 'no consulta fuentes' qualifier, and every clause carries information. Some sentences are long and dense (the exportar sentence chains four conditions), which costs a point but nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the activation gate, storage lifetime, persistence, per-action parameter coupling, and export edge cases including the returned final path, while pointing to obtener_documento for a neighboring use case. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents each field, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning on top: id is required specifically for agregar/leer/exportar, campo and texto must be supplied together, and ruta may be a file or a directory with different write behavior.

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?

Names a specific resource (un expediente para agrupar consultas, citas y observaciones) and enumerates the four operations (crear, agregar, leer, exportar). Crucially it distinguishes itself from the many buscar_* siblings with 'No consulta ninguna fuente: guarda lo que le pasas', so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 explicit entry conditions (se activa con EXPEDIENTES=1, desactivado por defecto), prescribes the flow ('El flujo empieza siempre en crear, SIN id'), states the per-action prerequisites ('agregar exige campo y texto juntos'), and names an alternative for a related job ('Para guardar el texto de una norma usa obtener_documento').

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