argument_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the output structure (map components) but omits behavioral details such as input format, error conditions, side effects, or return type handling. This is minimal disclosure for a tool without annotation support.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output components. It avoids filler and front-loads the key verb, making it appropriately sized.

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?

While the description lists the map's components, it fails to explain the input contract (case_json format), usage context, or return structure. Given the tool has no output schema and one undocumented parameter, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 schema has one parameter, case_json, with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention case_json or explain what data it should contain, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate this required field.

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 tool builds an argument-by-argument map and enumerates its components (fundamento, alcance, limite legal, prueba requerida, controles de rechazo). This specific verb+resource makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like audit_argumentation or legal_graph.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_argumentation or legal_graph. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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