Buscando por tesaurio

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 a genuine behavioral subtlety: 'total' counts only documents assigned directly to the node, whereas listar_tesauro's 'count_subarbol' is the accumulated subtree count (with a concrete example, raiz 63493 vs 7). Auth, rate limits, and empty-result behavior are not covered, but the most misleading counterintuitive trait is surfaced.

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 Args/Devuelve blocks are structured and front-loaded, but the 'Devuelve' line largely restates an output schema that already exists, and the note about total vs count_subarbol is buried after the field list. It is longer than it needs to be, with some duplication of structured data.

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 3-parameter query tool with an existing output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, id sourcing, exact parameter values, and the count-discrepancy caveat. The return-shape restatement is redundant given the output schema, but no decision-relevant information is missing.

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% and the schema has no enums or defaults documented beyond raw values, so the description must compensate — and it does: 'tesaurios' is comma-separated ids from the chosen tree with examples ('4', '1,2'), 'tipo' enumerates the exact accepted strings and its default, and 'page' is 1-based. Nothing needed to call the tool is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns documents/results by TESAURO concept node of the TC, accumulated by 'count' per node. It also anchors its identity by stating the ids come from the tree returned by sibling listar_tesauro, so an agent can distinguish it from buscar_sentencias or resultados_sistematizacion without opening any schema.

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 names the prerequisite source of the 'tesaurios' ids (el arbol de listar_tesauro) and pins the exact accepted values for 'tipo'. It doesn't state when-not to use it versus busqueda_avanzada or buscar_sentencias, but the routing context is clear enough.

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