obtener_norma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns multiple components (metadata, texts, index, modifications, observations) and explicitly states a key behavioral limitation: 'La base NO determina vigencia: solo presenta el grafo de modificaciones.' This is valuable beyond schema.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and components; the second explains input formats and a key behavioral caveat. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the expected return components (metadata, texts, article index, modifications summary, observations). It also clarifies a limitation about validity determination. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, this is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing that 'ref' accepts canonical id (ley_20744), alias (ccyc), or numeric id_norma. This adds critical meaning missing from the schema.

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 specifies that the tool returns a 'Ficha completa de una norma' with detailed components (metadata, texts, article index, modifications, InfoLEG observations). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_normas' (search) and 'leer_articulos' (read articles) by focusing on a comprehensive single-norm retrieval.

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 explains that 'ref' accepts three formats (canonical id, alias, numeric id_norma) and clarifies that the tool does not determine validity, only presenting the modification graph. This provides context for when to use the tool, though it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like 'modificaciones'.

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