obtener_fallo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content (fields of the record) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, authorization requirements, or potential errors. For a simple retrieval, the output description provides moderate transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Ficha de un fallo CSJN') and then lists key fields. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, though the colon-separated list could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's low complexity (one required integer parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists output fields. However, it omits details about error handling, empty results, or the relationship to the input ID. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 single parameter 'id_fallo' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its format, purpose, or constraints beyond what the property name implies. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 a 'Ficha de un fallo CSJN' and lists key fields (caratula, fecha, tomo/pagina, sumarios, proveniencia del PDF), which specifies the resource and output content. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'leer_fallo' or 'buscar_fallos', so it lacks full differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'leer_fallo' for full text, 'buscar_fallos' for search). No context about prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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