assess_case

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (assessment and output categories) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or has limitations. For a potentially complex legal analysis tool, more behavioral context would be expected.

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 exceptionally concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a single sentence to convey both the action and the outcome categories. Every word adds value, with 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and expected outcome categories. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or provide details on how the prognosis/implications are structured. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, but the description is suff

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 description covers 100% of the parameter ('JSON del caso'), so the description does not need to add much. It merely restates that the tool receives case_json without adding structure or format details, aligning with the baseline score.

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's function: to assess legal solidity (irrefutable/solid/weak/unsustainable) and provide legal implications and prognosis. It specifies the input (case_json) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like process_case and validate_case by focusing on outcome classification rather than processing or validation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply says 'Recibe case_json' without any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate selection.

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