doctrina_ingestar_documento

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses the side effects: updating the Knowledge Graph (legal_knowledge_graph.json) and the SQLite FTS5 index automatically. This is significant behavioral context for a conversion tool that modifies persistent state, and it is clearly stated.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core conversion action and then lists the side effects. It is concise yet packs substantial information without unnecessary repetition. It could be slightly reorganized for readability, but it earns its length.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the main function, accepted formats, and automatic updates. It does not detail error handling or the exact Markdown formatting, but it provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the file_path formats and the graph update option, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Convierte') and resource ('documentos... a Markdown canónico') and also mentions the automatic update of the Knowledge Graph and SQLite index. It clearly distinguishes this ingestion tool from search/retrieval siblings like doctrina_search and doctrina_get_institucion, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for adding or converting doctrine documents into the system, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusionary conditions (e.g., 'use doctrina_search for querying instead'). The context of sibling tools suggests the usage context, but the description itself lacks clear when-to-use guidance.

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