sincronizar_normas_regulamentadoras

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool persists embeddings and uses SHA-256, and that it discovers and extracts PDF items. However, it does not state whether existing embeddings are updated or replaced, whether network/MTE access is required, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the full pipeline without filler or redundancy. Each phrase adds a distinct stage: discovery, extraction, and persistence with integrity hashing.

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 two-parameter ingest operation with no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits the meaning of nrs and concorrencia, any prerequisites or side effects, and when this sync should be run relative to sibling corpus tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but operational context is still missing.

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 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. While names like 'nrs' and 'concorrencia' hint at meaning, the agent gets no explicit guidance about accepted values, units, or how the parameters affect the extraction/persistence pipeline.

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 names a concrete pipeline: discovers current PDFs on MTE, extracts items, and persists embeddings with SHA-256. It clearly identifies the resource (regulatory norms from MTE) and differentiates from siblings like listar_normas_regulamentadoras and sincronizar_corpus_juridico by describing ingestion and persistence rather than listing.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool or when to prefer an alternative such as sincronizar_corpus_juridico or listar_normas_regulamentadoras. The only guidance is implied by the verb 'sincronizar' in the name and the pipeline description.

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