estado

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'compatibility' and 'historical diagnosis' without explaining what happens when called, whether it reads or mutates, or what the response represents. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool 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?

The description is short as a single sentence, but it does not earn its place because the content is vague and uninformative. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Although there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is too vague to be contextually complete. The agent remains unclear about the tool's purpose and when to choose it over the many sibling status tools.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. A baseline score of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters when none exist.

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 'Compatibilidad con el diagnóstico histórico del núcleo de sentencias' lacks a clear verb and resource. It suggests a compatibility/status concept related to historical diagnosis of sentence cores but does not state what the tool actually does, making it hard to distinguish from sibling status tools like estado_corpus_jurisprudencia.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate invocation scenario among many similar-looking status tools.

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