leer_fallo

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

The description discloses pagination behavior but does not mention other traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or error conditions. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is only partially transparent.

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, conveying essential information in a single sentence without superfluous words.

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 covers the core functionality but lacks details on output format, return structure, and differentiation from similar tools like 'obtener_fallo'. Without an output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 explains the 'fragmento' parameter by mentioning pagination, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify the 'id_fallo' parameter, leaving it unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 returns the literal full text of a ruling with pagination. It references a sibling tool for verification, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'obtener_fallo', which may serve a similar function.

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?

It advises to use the tool for verbatim quoting and to verify with 'verificar_cita', providing a specific use case. However, it lacks guidance on when to avoid this tool or how it compares to other reading tools like 'obtener_fallo'.

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