registrar_jurisprudencia

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It omits behavioral details like overwrite behavior, idempotency, side effects on existing data, or required permissions for a write operation.

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 short sentences efficiently convey the tool's core function and its critical role relative to verificar_referencias, with no filler.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description does not specify output behavior, error handling, or data model effects (e.g., whether registration appends or replaces), leaving agent uninformed about operational outcomes.

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 0%, yet description adds no explanation for case_id or documentos other than hinting at registration, leaving parameter meaning and constraints largely undeclared.

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 registers real doc_ids from a jurisprudence MCP and uniquely enables verificar_referencias to accept a doc_id, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 implicitly recommends use when real doc_ids are available from the connected jurisprudence MCP and as the only path to feed verificar_referencias, providing clear usage context without explicit exclusions.

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