clinica_intake_social

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the ficha is persisted or only returned, whether the datos_usuario object is validated or how sensitive personal data (RUT, socioeconomic status) is handled, or what the agent receives back. For a generation tool handling personal data, this is a meaningful 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 that front-loads the verb and the artifact produced. Nothing is wasted, though it is a bit short given the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the 'ficha sociojurídica' contains and whether it is stored, but it does not. For a tool that consumes a nested personal-data object and produces a document, the definition is under-specified relative to its complexity.

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 both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema and even loosely frames the scope as 'familia, civil o laboral', which does not map cleanly onto the schema's enum-like values ('alimentos', 'precario', 'cuidado_personal').

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 ('Genera la ficha sociojurídica de ingreso') and scopes it to a clear domain (free legal aid clinics, family/civil/labor matters). It is distinguishable from the other 'clinica_' siblings, but it never names or contrasts them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. The usage is only implied by the domain phrase 'consultorios de asistencia judicial gratuita', leaving the agent to infer when intake is appropriate versus auditing a draft (clinica_auditar_borrador) or plain-language rewriting (clinica_lenguaje_claro).

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