obtener_placeholders_modelo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Devuelve' implies a read-only listing and 'aún bloquean' hints at a filtered subset, but there is no disclosure of ordering, scope, whether results are model-wide or study-specific, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier ('que aún bloquean preparación de estudio') follows the verb efficiently. It is terse rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the return shape and the meaning of a placeholder/TBC, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what fields come back or how to act on them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty schema.

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 (Devuelve) and a resource (TBC explícitos que aún bloquean preparación de estudio), so the general purpose is discernible. However, the jargon 'TBC' is never defined and the definition does not distinguish this from adjacent readiness/placeholder tools such as evaluar_preparacion_estudio or registrar_placeholder_modelo.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the read-side companion to registrar_placeholder_modelo purely from the tool name.

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