bcn_get_codigo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether the returned content is the current in-force version, how 'estructura' differs from an article lookup, or anything about response format or limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, and the complete list of codes all appear immediately with zero waste.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and its input domain, but leaves the return shape and the distinction from historical/ley siblings unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by enumerating all nine valid values of the required 'codigo' parameter (civil, trabajo, cpc, penal, comercio, tributario, mineria, aguas, cpp), whereas the schema only offers three example strings. The optional 'articulo' behavior (omit to get structure) remains implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (consulta) and resource (los 9 Códigos de la República de Chile) and even enumerates all nine codes, so the agent knows exactly what domain it covers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like bcn_get_ley, bcn_get_ley_historica, or bcn_get_codigo_historico, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 purpose implies usage (retrieve articles or structure of a code), and the enumerated codes scope the valid inputs. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus bcn_get_ley or the historical variants, and no when-not guidance.

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