Translates dense Chilean judicial resolutions into clear, accessible, empathetic language for legal aid clinic users.
Traduce una resolución judicial chilena densa a lenguaje claro, accesible y empático para usuarios de consultorios jurídicos (CAJ).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| destinatario | No | Perfil del destinatario | usuario_caj |
| texto_resolucion | Yes | Texto de la resolución a traducir |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Traduce' implies a generative transformation but the description does not state whether the output is a faithful legal rendering, whether content may be summarized or omitted, what caveats apply, or whether the output requires human review. For a legal-domain transformation tool this is a significant disclosure 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 zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource and finishing with the audience qualifier.
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 legal-domain generative tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits key context: output format, fidelity constraints, handling of sensitive data, and any review requirement. The audience is clear but an agent lacks enough to invoke this responsibly in a legal setting.
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 schema already documents both parameters and their defaults. The description adds no syntax, length limits, or format guidance beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 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 (traduce) and resource (resolución judicial chilena densa) with output characteristics (lenguaje claro, accesible, empático) and target audience (usuarios de CAJ). This is distinguishable from siblings like pjud_interpretar_proveido or vigilante_analizar_resolucion, which analyze rather than translate for laypeople.
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 audience ('usuarios de consultorios jurídicos CAJ') implicitly signals when this tool applies: when a plain-language rendering for a lay client is needed. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for adjacent tasks such as analyzing or auditing resolutions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.