export_brief_ojv

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that it is a non-destructive write. It adds that output is produced in four concrete formats (.html, .md, .txt, .json), which is genuine behavioral value, but says nothing about where files land, whether existing files are overwritten, or required auth.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and resource and ending with the output formats. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With seven parameters, five required, no output schema and no nested objects, the definition covers the essentials: what it produces, the legal context, and the export formats. It is slightly thin on the export mechanics (destination, overwrite behavior) but complete enough for an agent to 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% and all seven parameters (titulo, tribunal, hechos, derecho, peticiones, comparecencia, otrosies) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the output-format list, so the baseline 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 concrete verb pair (genera y exporta) and a specific resource (escrito judicial estructurado formalmente) scoped to a named legal regime (OJV, Ley N° 20.886). An agent can tell this is a document-generation/export tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like generar_documento or recurso_proteccion_generar, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the OJV/Ley 20.886 framing — an agent can infer this is for filing-oriented judicial briefs — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as generar_documento or compile_legal_dossier. Minimum viable guidance.

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