estado_investigacion_juridica

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Diagnóstico' implies a read-only status inspection, and 'corpus local persistente' adds some context about what is being examined, but the description does not explicitly confirm that the tool has no side effects, does not mutate data, or has any relevant access or freshness characteristics.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the important scope detail about the persistent local corpus. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose and scope without needing to explain return values. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify how this status report relates to the overlapping estado and estado_corpus_jurisprudencia tools, but invocation risk is low due to the empty schema.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds contextual meaning by identifying what the diagnostic covers, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 that the tool provides a diagnosis/status of legal research and explicitly includes the persistent local corpus. It is not a tautology and gives a reasonable sense of the tool's resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate itself from similar estado_* sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as estado, estado_corpus_jurisprudencia, or estado_directorio_autoridades. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers mentioned, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.

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