vigilante_analizar_resolucion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what the tool computes (procedural burdens, fatal deadlines in business days under Art. 66 CPC), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits permissions, whether the operation is read-only, and what the analysis 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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, the output, and the legal basis without filler. Dense but nothing wasted; slightly compressed given the legal jargon.

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 an analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the return shape (e.g., deadline dates, identified cargas) to let the agent plan. It states the computation domain but leaves the response format unspecified.

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 both parameters (procedimiento with default 'civil', resolucion_texto) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or enum guidance 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?

States a specific verb (analiza) plus resource (resolución judicial) and enumerates the concrete outputs (detects cargas procesales, calculates plazos fatales). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like pjud_analizar_sentencia or pjud_interpretar_proveido, so an agent cannot tell which analysis tool applies without opening schemas.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The provenance hint ('provista en OJV/PJUD') gestures at input source but does not route the agent among the many sibling analyzers.

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