caso_ejecutar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it may be slow because every step hits the real source, and failed steps are recorded with their error rather than fabricating a result. That latency and failure-semantics disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations, though auth/rate-limit context and return shape are absent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then the latency and error-handling caveats. No sentence is 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?

For a 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, real-source behavior, latency and failure handling well. The remaining gap is that the three undocumented input parameters are left for the agent to guess.

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 only 25% (only 'pasos' is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does not: 'entrada', 'tipo' (the carpeta/texto/consulta enum) and 'limite_pasos' are unexplained. It only indirectly signals the step-based model via 'el plan' and 'cada paso'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Ejecuta el plan de caso_analizar') and names the sibling that produces its input, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from caso_analizar and the many search_* siblings. It also enumerates the concrete scope (State services, indexed doctrine, folder documents).

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?

It clearly implies the workflow: run this after caso_analizar to execute the generated plan. That is strong contextual guidance, but it never states when NOT to use it or how to pick between it and the individual service tools it wraps.

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