estado_corpus_jurisprudencia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful trait: no network access is performed, and 'local persistente' indicates the data source. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe what 'estado real' includes or how the result is returned.

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 filler. Every part contributes: the action, the resource, the local persistence, and the no-network behavior.

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 zero-parameter status tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is reported and the key limitation. It could be improved by explicitly confirming no side effects and by naming what aspects of the corpus state are covered, but no critical calling information is missing.

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 the description need not explain parameter meaning. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description's purpose statement is sufficient.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Reporta el estado real del corpus local persistente'. It is distinct from sibling state tools like estado_directorio_autoridades by naming the persisted legal corpus, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'sin hacer acceso de red' implies this tool is appropriate when the agent needs local, offline corpus status. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as 'use this instead of buscar_corpus_jurisprudencia for local-only checks'.

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