leychile_citar

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that it returns the exact text with a forensic citation, but no unique behavioral disclosures beyond what annotations already provide.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the core purpose, second provides examples and output details. No extraneous words, efficiently communicates key information.

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 presence of an output schema and only one required parameter, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It mentions the exact text and forensic citation, which complements the schema.

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 'cita' parameter has a detailed description in the schema with examples. The tool description adds information about the return value (inciso/numeral/letra or full article with forensic citation), providing context 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 clearly states the tool interprets a free-text legal citation and returns the exact text cited, with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like leychile_buscar_normas which are for searching, not resolving citations.

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?

While the description gives examples of valid inputs, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like leychile_buscar_en_norma. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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