detalle_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so by spelling out the complete return envelope ('ok', 'url', 'cabecera', 'item', 'acciones') and the semantic meaning of each action record (convocatoria publication, award, contract). It implies a read-only retrieval but never states side effects or auth requirements explicitly, which keeps it below a 5.

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 header states the resource, followed by clearly labeled Args and Devuelve blocks. It is dense but every line carries information. The all-caps lead line is slightly awkward, but there is no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies parameter sourcing, index base conventions, and the full return structure, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret it. It does not cover error/failure behavior beyond the 'ok' flag, leaving a small gap.

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%, yet all three parameters are explained with precise semantics: 'ses' is the session from buscar_procesos, 'index' is the global 0-based row index, and 'nro_item' is 1-based following the order of 'items' in ficha_proceso. The explicit 0-based vs 1-based distinction is exactly the kind of detail the bare schema omits.

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 names the specific resource — the actions/lifecycle of a single item within a process — and clarifies it is reached via buscar_procesos and ficha_proceso. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, but the return shape ('ciclo de vida completo del item') makes the intent unambiguous. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like ficha_proceso or historial_proceso.

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 clearly documents the call chain: 'ses' must come from buscar_procesos, 'index' is the row index from that same search, and 'nro_item' comes from ficha_proceso -> items. That gives an agent a clear precondition context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative sibling.

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