clinica_auditar_borrador

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 says the audit is 'formal' but never discloses what is actually checked (formal structure, citations, legal validity?), what the output looks like, whether the draft is modified, or what permissions are needed. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action ('Audita formalmente el borrador') ahead of the qualifiers. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse to carry the disclosure burden it inherits from the absence of annotations.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must alone explain what an audit yields. It never states what the audit returns (findings? a pass/fail? a corrected draft?) or how results are shaped, leaving the agent unable to set expectations for the call.

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%, and both parameters ('tribunal' with default 'Civil', and 'borrador_texto') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Audita formalmente el borrador de un escrito' and adds the workflow context (draft authored by an intern, prior to the supervising lawyer's signature). This is much clearer than a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'clinica_lenguaje_claro', which plausibly also inspects legal text, so an agent must guess which to call.

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 embeds timing context ('antes de la firma electrónica del abogado tutor'), which implies when the tool fits in the workflow. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to any alternative sibling (e.g. clinica_lenguaje_claro) for adjacent review tasks, leaving selection to inference.

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