zyta_judicial_expediente_get

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, leaving assumptions to the agent.

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 very short (one sentence and endpoint), front-loading the purpose. It is efficient but could include a brief note on typical use or response structure without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's core purpose but omits details about the response format or what 'actuaciones' entails, which could aid the agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with description), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the parameter implicitly via the endpoint.

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 the tool retrieves 'Detalle de un expediente judicial con actuaciones' (detail of a judicial file with actions) and includes the HTTP method and endpoint. It uses a specific verb (detail/get) and resource (expediente judicial), distinguishing it from siblings like list.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zyta_judicial_expedientes_list or zyta_judicial_cursor_registrar_actuacion. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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