doctrina_ingestar_documento

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world mutation. The description adds meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond that: it writes a Markdown file and automatically updates legal_knowledge_graph.json and the FTS5 index. It still omits overwrite/re-ingestion behavior and auth requirements, but adds real context over the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence opening with the core verb 'Convierte'. It is dense but every clause earns its place by naming inputs, output format, and the two downstream artifacts updated; the nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, the produced artifact, and the automatic graph/index updates, and every parameter is schema-documented. It leaves some gaps (return value, behavior on re-ingestion), but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the supported file types but adds no format or syntactic detail beyond what the schema provides for file_path, area, obra, tratadista, target_path, or actualizar_grafo.

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 precise verb and resource: it converts documents (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) or raw text into canonical Markdown and updates the Knowledge Graph and SQLite FTS5 index. This is a distinct ingestion/conversion role that no sibling tool (all searches, lists, or graph readers) performs, so the agent can place it unambiguously.

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 purpose implies when to use it (ingesting a source document into the doctrine corpus), but the description never states when-not to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to alternatives like doctrina_search or grafo_ver_corpus. Usage is only inferable from the stated effect.

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