counter_defenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It indicates a read-only retrieval behavior via 'Devuelve', but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements, side effects, or limitations. It's adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, with the first being a metaphorical statement of limited informational value. The second sentence is efficient and front-loads the core functionality and usage directive. Overall sized well.

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 tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the function and usage. However, it omits details about the input format and any assumptions about the case, which could be critical for correct invocation. The mention of counter-articles and full articles gives some output expectations.

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, so schema coverage is 0%. The description references 'el caso' implying the input is the case data, but it doesn't explain the expected format or structure. This partially compensates but leaves ambiguity.

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 returns evasion tactics applicable to the case, with exact counter-articles and full articles. The verb 'Devuelve' and specific resources distinguish it from sibling analysis tools.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool BEFORE drafting the 'DESESTIMACION DE DEFENSAS PREVISIBLES' section, providing clear temporal guidance. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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