pjud_interpretar_proveido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the tool performs a simple lookup, a legal reasoning step, or generative interpretation; no mention of permissions, rate limits, side effects, or output format. The agent cannot predict what the tool actually returns.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and scopes it with concrete examples. No unnecessary padding, though it could be slightly more concise by not repeating the full list of proveído types.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the interpretation entails (e.g., returns a structured analysis, a summary, or legal risk flags). It leaves the return value and behavioral profile completely unspecified, which is a significant gap for an interpretation 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter whose schema description ('Texto del proveído o resolución judicial breve') is adequate. The tool description adds examples of what kinds of texts qualify, which marginally enriches parameter meaning, but baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 (interpretar) and resource (proveídos frecuentes) with concrete examples ('Téngase presente', 'Como se pide', 'Traslado', 'Autos para fallo'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like pjud_analizar_sentencia, which could confuse an agent about scope, but the domain focus is clear.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for short judicial decrees rather than full sentences, but nothing in the description directs it away from pjud_analizar_sentencia.

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