Listando catálogos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: exact-match semantics with the 'Penal' vs 'Familia Penal' example, the district-dependency of certain catalogs, and the 'Todos'/'0' no-filter equivalence. It also sketches the return shape, but omits auth/permission needs or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly sectioned into Args and Devuelve. The only waste is that the category list appears twice (first sentence and Args block), a minor redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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 single-parameter, read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the consumer tools, and the key caveats. It stops short of documenting the full output fields (indicated only by '...'), but an agent can invoke it correctly from what is given.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description must compensate. The Args block enumerates the valid categoria values ('todos', 'nivel', 'distritos', 'especialidades', 'tipos_recurso', 'tipos_resolucion', 'anios', 'orden') and explains 'todos' as the summary mode, which is exactly the missing information.

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 states a concrete resource (the exact catalog values behind the search filters: nivel, distritos, especialidades, tipos_recurso, tipos_resolucion, anios, orden) and its role as supplier of inputs to buscar_resoluciones and buscar_laudos. That explicitly separates it from the sibling search tools, which consume rather than produce these values.

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 tells the agent the values 'alimentan los filtros de buscar_resoluciones y buscar_laudos', and adds a conditional caveat that in Corte Superior specialties/salas depend on the district (pointing to listar_salas) and that 'Todos'/'0' means no filter. Clear context for when to call it, though it never states a when-not-to-use case.

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