secop_generate_rag_chunks

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output form (Markdown chunks with institutional headers and metadata) and target systems (Qdrant/Chroma), but says nothing about whether chunks are persisted/embedded, side effects, permissions, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema means return values needn't be explained, but the filtering semantics and operational context an agent needs to call it correctly are absent.

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?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them. Filters like estado, dataset, entidad, keyword, modalidad, cuantia_min, departamento, and chunk_size_chars are left entirely to bare schema names with no added meaning or default behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Genera chunks semánticos en Markdown' with contextual headers and metadata for RAG stores. The purpose is clear and distinct from search/crawl/inspect siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative to differentiate itself.

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?

There is no when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether source data must be ingested or the bridge healthy), and no explanation of how to choose filters versus the seven sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the name.

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