practicar_discriminacion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the tool generates comparison pairs and axes useful for memory and decision cases, but it does not describe the interaction flow, output format, or any side effects. The description is not misleading, but it leaves the agent guessing about what actually happens when called.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core content (pairs of institutions) and then adds the intended use case. Every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and sparse parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the returned content looks like, how quantity works, whether it evaluates answers, or how rama/tema narrow the comparison set. The agent would need additional info to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain how 'rama', 'tema', or 'cantidad' affect the output. The schema gives rama an enum and cantidad min/max, but the description adds no semantic meaning to these parameters, so the agent cannot infer how to set them well.

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 identifies the tool's subject: pairs of confusable legal institutions (nulidad absoluta/relativa, apelación/casación) with comparison axes. It conveys a specific practice/discrimination purpose and is distinct from siblings like practicar_plazos or sortear_cedula, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Para un cuadro comparativo de memoria y casos en que hay que decidir qué institución aplica.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with alternative practice tools.

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