get_adjuntos_expediente

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

While no annotations are present, the description discloses the return structure, including the E:/O: prefix pass-through behavior and the date format, and frames the operation as a read-only 'Get.' It does not explicitly mention auth, pagination, or side effects, but for a simple list operation it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Two logically structured sentences: first states the purpose and return fields, second gives actionable downstream usage. No filler.

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?

With a single parameter, a provided output schema, and a clear description covering purpose, return fields, and interaction with download_adjunto, the description is complete for agent use. The output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.

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 only parameter, idExpediente, is already fully described in the schema with 'Expediente ID' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter's format or constraints, so 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('all attachments for an expediente') and enumerates the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like download_adjunto, which is referenced as the follow-up operation.

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?

It explains the context (listing attachments for an expediente) and explicitly instructs to pass idFichero, idOperacion, and nombre to download_adjunto, creating a clear usage workflow. It does not discuss when not to use this tool vs other siblings, but the workflow guidance is sufficient.

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