Expediente temporal de investigación

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the activation flag (EXPEDIENTES=1, disabled by default), memory vs. disk persistence via EXPEDIENTES_TTL_MS and EXPEDIENTES_DIR, and the exact behavior of each action (e.g., 'crear' returns the id, 'agregar' requires an already created expediente). This goes well beyond the schema.

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 concise, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then covers configuration and action semantics in order. Every sentence contributes new behavioral information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the lifecycle (create, add, read, export), persistence behavior, activation requirements, and parameter constraints. It provides enough detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor clarifications such as 'agregar' requiring an already created expediente and the markdown output for 'exportar', but it mostly reiterates schema details. Overall it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 'Crea, agrega, lee o exporta un expediente para agrupar consultas, citas y observaciones de una investigación', explicitly naming the verbs and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search/retrieval tools, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Clear context is provided: it is for grouping investigation-related items, requires the EXPEDIENTES=1 flag to be enabled, and supports four specific actions. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's role as a container versus the siblings' search functions is implied, so there is clear context without exclusions.

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