agent_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the agent coordinates tools autonomously and mentions execution modes ('determinista soberano o LLM'), which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, execution duration, failure behavior, or any authorization requirements.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. The list of agent examples is somewhat long but directly useful. It is concise without being vague.

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 that this is a complex meta-orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the agent returns, how 'auto', 'deterministic', and 'llm' modes differ behaviorally, or how to discover available agents (e.g., via agent_list). An agent calling this tool would lack important operational context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds little beyond repeating the agent_name examples already present in the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 verb ('Ejecuta'), the resource ('un agente jurídico especializado'), and the goal ('resolver un objetivo legal complejo'). It also differentiates this tool from the sibling tools by framing it as an autonomous orchestrator of the suite, with a concrete list of agent aliases.

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 implies usage for complex legal objectives that require autonomous coordination of multiple suite tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over direct sibling tools or provide exclusions. There is no mention of simpler cases where a single specialized tool should be used instead.

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