pjud_interpretar_proveido

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds domain scope and examples, but does not disclose output format, limitations, or other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action, the scope, and concrete examples efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter interpretation tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is interpreted and in which domain. It could say more about the expected return, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Interpreta') and resource ('significado jurídico y las cargas procesales de proveídos frecuentes en la tramitación judicial de la OJV') with concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic legal analysis, but does not explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with.

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 usage for frequent judicial proveídos in OJV processing by listing examples, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives such as pjud_analizar_sentencia. The context is clear but the routing guidance is only implied.

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