audit_argumentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is audited but says nothing about return format, side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves agents uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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 concise sentences: the first lists specific flaws to audit, the second clarifies the tool's relationship to audit_draft. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a report of flaws). It does not, though the purpose and scope are clear enough for basic selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% ('Texto del borrador.') and the tool description restates 'borradores' without adding extra meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Audita' (audits) and the resource 'vicios argumentativos en borradores' (argumentative flaws in drafts), listing specific flaw types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from audit_draft, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions 'Complementa a audit_draft' and explains audit_draft reviews legal correctness, which implies when to use this tool for argumentative flaws. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or other alternatives beyond audit_draft, so it stops short of full guidance.

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