pjud_analizar_sentencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether processing is read-only, whether the input must be plain text (vs PDF), what happens with incomplete sentences, or how results are returned. It only describes output structure, not operational behavior.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the structural taxonomy efficiently. No filler or repetition.

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 1-parameter analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the output taxonomy but omits expected input size, error conditions, and usage context. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer significant operational details.

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% with a single well-described parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema's own description of texto_sentencia.

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 (Desglosa) and resource (sentencia judicial chilena) and enumerates the exact structural components it extracts per Art. 170 CPC. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like pjud_interpretar_proveido or search tools.

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 versus alternatives such as pjud_interpretar_proveido or pjud_search_jurisprudencia, nor any prerequisites (e.g., input must be a full sentence text). The description only tells what it does, not when to choose it.

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