leychile_obtener_articulo

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal context about return values (location, date, citation) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Single sentence is concise but overly minimal. Lacks essential context such as parameter requirements or example usage. Could be restructured to front-load critical information like input requirements.

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 complexity of sibling tools and nested parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to specify the article or distinguish from similar tools like obtener_fragmento. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it to clarify return structure.

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 description adds no information about parameters. Although the input schema has detailed descriptions for each field (100% coverage in schema), the tool description fails to clarify how to identify the article (e.g., needing articulo plus id_norma or numero_ley). Schema coverage is 0% from the description's perspective.

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 it obtains the text of a specific article with location, version date, and forensic citation. It distinguishes from siblings like obtener_norma (whole norm) and obtener_version (version of norm) by focusing on a single article.

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. There are many sibling tools for searching, comparing, listing articles, etc., but the description does not provide context for selection.

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