get_operaciones_expediente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape, including date format, idOperacion prefix pass-through guidance, and the flattened extras dict. It is clearly a read operation ('Get'), and the additional detail about how to handle IDs adds useful context beyond a basic read hint.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists return fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the list format could be slightly better structured. Overall it earns its length by conveying essential return semantics.

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?

Given the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately explains the tool's return contract and even provides cross-tool pass-through guidance. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but for a simple, well-annotated schema it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both idExpediente and includeEspeciales. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify what the returned 'operations' include, which indirectly aids interpretation. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action and resource: 'Get all operations (movements) for a specific expediente.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_novedades_expedientes (novelties) and get_texto_operacion_expediente (single operation text) by focusing on the full list of operations. This is specific and non-tautological.

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 description implies usage for fetching operations/movements, and the schema's parameter description for idExpediente tells the agent where to obtain the expediente ID (from get_novedades_expedientes or get_expedientes). It does not explicitly cite alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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