leychile_listar_modificaciones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the source ('desde notas marginales') but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as output format or empty results handling. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but minimal added value.

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, concise 10-word sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes; no redundancy.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with four optional parameters and no parameter explanation. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter context forces the agent to infer usage from the schema alone, which may be insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% as per context, placing the burden on the description. The description fails to explain any of the tool's parameters (articulo, id_norma, numero_ley, response_format), leaving the agent without parameter guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 lists modifying laws from marginal notes of a norm or article. It uses specific verb 'Lista' and resource 'leyes modificatorias', distinguishing it from sibling list tools like leychile_listar_articulos and leychile_listar_categorias.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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