caso_ejecutar

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it can be slow because each step goes to the real source, failed steps are annotated with their error, and it never returns an invented result. These go beyond the schema and annotations (none provided), giving the agent critical expectations about latency and failure handling.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core function first, then the key behavioral warnings. Every sentence adds value, and the warning about slowness and error handling is placed early. No wasted words.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the main operational expectations: what it does, what sources it touches, that it can be slow, and how failures are handled. It doesn't describe the return format or how to interpret the annotated errors, but the core context for calling it correctly is present.

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 25%, so the description carries some burden. The description explains the overall execution flow but doesn't detail the meaning of `tipo`, `pasos`, `entrada`, or `limite_pasos` beyond what the schema provides. The schema covers `pasos` and `limite_pasos` partially, but `tipo` and `entrada` remain under-explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds context about the plan execution but doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 states the tool executes the plan from `caso_analizar`, specifying the exact resources it queries (BCN, PJUD, CGR, DT, SII, CMF, SMA), the doctrina search, and folder documents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the specific plan it executes and the real-source behavior.

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 explains when to use it: after `caso_analizar` has produced a plan, and it warns about delays because each step hits real sources. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the reference to `caso_analizar` and the plan context provides clear usage context.

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