compile_legal_dossier

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a filesystem write (generating a PDF at output_pdf_path) but does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure modes when annex files are missing, order of assembled annexes, or any permission/limit constraints. Only the transformation itself is conveyed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then layers on formats and annex assembly. No filler, though it omits any usage or behavioral context that could have earned the sentence more.

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 document-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the transformation adequately but omits the return value (e.g. resulting PDF path/status), error conditions, and what the optional mobile_preview_path produces. The high schema coverage offsets some of this gap.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'A4 formal' and the notion of institutional separator covers (which are auto-generated, not a parameter), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (compila/compiles) and resource (escrito judicial o denuncia) and specifies both input (Markdown) and output (formal A4 PDF) formats, including annex assembly. It is highly self-explanatory, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from document-related siblings like export_brief_ojv or biblioteca_compilar_manifiesto.

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 states what the tool produces but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g. required input template, valid file paths). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is present.

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