Audit Chilean judicial mandate and sponsorship texts to verify ordinary and express extraordinary powers under Ley 18.120 and CPC Art. 7.
Audita formalmente el texto de un mandato judicial y patrocinio (Ley 18.120), verificando facultades ordinarias (Art. 7 inc. 1) y extraordinarias expresas (Art. 7 inc. 2 CPC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texto_mandato | Yes | Texto del otrosí de patrocinio y poder o escritura pública de mandato |
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. It states what is verified (ordinary and extraordinary faculties) but not what the result looks like (e.g., pass/fail, error details), whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context (formal audit) but is insufficient for a validation tool with no structured safety hints.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and specific legal references. There is no wasted verbiage; every clause contributes to defining the scope.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the audit returns, how errors are reported, or any prerequisites. For a validation tool that likely produces a structured verdict, this leaves the agent guessing.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (it mentions 'texto de un mandato' implicitly, but the schema already says 'Texto del otrosí de patrocinio y poder o escritura pública de mandato'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Audita formalmente') and resource ('texto de un mandato judicial y patrocinio') with legal precision, including the specific statutes checked (Ley 18.120, Art. 7 CPC). It is distinguishable from siblings, though sibling names are opaque and don't overlap in obvious ways. The purpose is clear but lacks scoping detail like output format or consequences.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The legal references imply a narrow scope, but the agent is left to infer that this applies only to mandate texts. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.