consulta_libre

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the tool as allowing direct SoQL queries similar to SQL, and provides examples. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. The examples only cover one parameter ($where). While it gives a basic understanding, more transparency about safety and limitations would be beneficial.

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 relatively concise, fitting the main purpose in two sentences and then providing examples. It starts with the primary purpose and then adds detail. Could be slightly more structured to separate explanation from examples, but overall efficient and not verbose.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is present but not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or pagination (though 'limite' and 'offset' suggest it), nor does it cover all parameters. The link to documentation helps but the description itself lacks full context. For a complex tool, more completeness is needed.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only adds context for the 'where' parameter via examples. Other parameters like 'dataset', 'select', 'order', 'busqueda_texto', 'limite', and 'offset' are not explained. The description should have provided meaning for all parameters to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Without that, the agent may misuse parameters.

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 'Consulta libre con SoQL sobre cualquier dataset SECOP,' indicating it's a free-form query tool. It specifies that it handles advanced queries not covered by other tools, and explains it allows writing SoQL clauses directly. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely have more constrained queries.

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 says 'Para consultas avanzadas que las otras herramientas no cubren,' providing explicit guidance on when to use this tool. It implies that for simpler or common queries, other tools should be used. It also includes a link to SoQL documentation for learning, and gives concrete examples of $where clauses, aiding correct usage.

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