leychile_obtener_metadatos

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds specific details about the content returned, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like required permissions or error states. With annotations covering safety, the description provides incremental 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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase. It is efficient and every word is relevant, but it could benefit from a full sentence structure.

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 tool has a clear purpose and returns specific metadata, but the description does not explain the input requirements or when to choose this over siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but input guidance 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?

The description does not mention the input parameters at all. Although the input schema includes descriptions for id_norma and numero_ley, the description text fails to guide the agent on how to specify the norm. Given 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that the tool returns metadata and validity status including specific items like legal vacancy, consolidated text, and version count. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that return full norms or articles. However, it does not explicitly state that it takes a norm identifier as input.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like leychile_obtener_norma or leychile_obtener_version. The description lacks any context or conditions for use.

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