Audit judicial drafts across fact, law, evidence, procedure, and strategy to surface weaknesses and strengthen arguments before filing.
Auditoría forense de un borrador judicial (5 dimensiones: hecho, derecho, prueba, procedimiento y estrategia) con el motor de crítica del producto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texto | Yes | El borrador a auditar | |
| provider | No | Proveedor de IA opcional (si se omite, usa el motor local) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the audit uses the product's critique engine but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The listing of dimensions is not behavioral context, so a low score is warranted.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage) but is highly concise.
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 tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the core purpose and dimensions. However, it omits any indication of return format, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.
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 both parameters ('texto' and 'provider') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Auditoría forense de un borrador judicial' with five named dimensions and the product's critique engine. This clearly conveys what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings like clinica_auditar_borrador or other analysis tools, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 implies a context (auditing a judicial draft) but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. No siblings are mentioned as alternatives. This falls short of the clear context expected for a 4 or the implied usage of a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.