process_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs a multi-stage pipeline and emphasizes the input must be JSON, not text, but does not mention side effects, return format, or prerequisites. This is thin for a complex pipeline tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's role and input constraint. No wasted words.

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?

Despite being a pipeline with multiple stages, the description does not explain what the tool returns or outputs, and there is no output schema. It also omits any context about prerequisites beyond JSON format. This makes it incomplete for an agent invoking the tool.

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 already covers the single parameter with a description (must start with '{'). The description adds the clarification 'NO texto' (not text), reinforcing that case_json must be structured JSON, which is a modest enhancement over the schema. 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 it is a complete pipeline to validate, substantiate, argue, and draft, using specific verbs tied to the case resource. It also says 'Use first,' which partially distinguishes it as the entry point, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like validate_case.

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 instruction 'Usar primero' (use first) provides clear guidance that this is the intended starting tool. However, it does not mention when to avoid it or suggest alternative tools for specific steps, so it lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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