recurso_proteccion_generar

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the description carries most of the burden — and it delivers by enumerating the concrete artifacts (editable .docx, structured .md/.html/.txt/.json, consolidated PDF with OJV cover and TOC bookmarks) and distinguishing work product from presentation copy. It omits where files are written, overwrite behavior, and auth/permission needs, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: purpose and legal basis first, then the deliverables, with the editable-vs-presentation distinction front-loaded inside the second sentence. Every clause earns its place, especially given there is no output schema to carry the return-value information.

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 15-parameter, nested-object generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back (the file set) and under which legal standard. The remaining gap is operational: output destination, whether existing files are overwritten, and any precondition on anexos paths are unstated.

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 every one of the 15 parameters (anexos, hechos, oficios, garantias, orden_de_no_innovar, etc.) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or dependency detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Genera y estandariza un Recurso de Protección' with the governing standard named (Auto Acordado Acta N.° 94-2015, OJV). An agent knows exactly what artifact this produces. However it does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like generar_documento, compile_legal_dossier or export_brief_ojv, 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?

The description says what the tool produces but never states when to choose it over the other document-generation/compilation siblings in the list. There is no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion — usage has to be inferred from the name alone.

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