preparar_caso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that OCR runs locally and nothing leaves the machine (privacy), that the operation is free (cost), and that large cases execute asynchronously with a companion polling tool. It omits failure behavior, idempotency, and whether existing extracted text is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then terse clauses for OCR/privacy, cost, async behavior, and the follow-up step. Every fragment earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the async workflow and the next step in the chain. It leaves a gap on input prerequisites and the format of 'caso', which matters for a one-parameter tool.

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?

One parameter, 'caso', has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only refers to it obliquely as 'cada PDF do caso'. It never clarifies whether 'caso' is an ID, a name, or a path, so an agent gets no added format semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource: extracts text from every PDF in the case, page by page, with local OCR for scanned documents. It also names its downstream sibling (indexar_caso), so an agent can place it in the pipeline without opening other 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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: run this, then indexar_caso, and for large cases poll status_caso while it runs in background. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., the case must already exist/have PDFs) or when not to call it, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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