get_matters_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool gets a table, but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or what the returned table contains. The verb 'obtiene' implies a read operation, but no further behavioral context is given.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information.

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 simple table retrieval with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about the returned table structure, pagination behavior, or any additional context. It does not mislead, but it also does not provide extra helpful information beyond the tool name.

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 100%, with both 'limit' and 'search_term' documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 the tool retrieves the table of matters/topics from the controlled vocabulary. It uses a specific verb ('obtiene') and resource ('tabla de materias/temáticas'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_scopes_table' and 'get_departments_table'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool compared to alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context about when to prefer other table retrieval tools.

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