export_brief_ojv

Does 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 the tool generates and exports, but does not disclose whether it writes files to disk, returns content, requires file paths, needs network/auth, or what happens on típica missing fields. The multiple output formats are mentioned but not how the format is selected (schema has no format parameter).

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it packs multiple format claims into a long clause rather than structuring them clearly.

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 7-parameter tool with 5 required structured inputs and no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain how the four formats are chosen or returned, what the caller must supply beyond the listed fields, or what 'exporta' means operationally (file vs response). It's not misleading, but it leaves major behavioral gaps for a fairly complex tool.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters with useful descriptions (e.g. 'Capítulo I. Los Hechos'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb ('Genera y exporta') and resource ('escrito judicial estructurado formalmente para la Oficina Judicial Virtual'), and names the legal framework and output formats. The 'export_brief' name aligns. Compared to siblings like 'clinica_auditar_borrador' or 'compile_legal_dossier', the OJV-specific framing distinguishes it, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'clinica_auditar_borrador' (which drafts/audits) or 'compile_legal_dossier'. No prerequisites, no mention that the input must already contain structured chapters (hechos/derecho/peticiones)., leaving an agent to infer.

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