get_my_completion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description adds a valuable specific behavior: 'sin marcar actividades como completadas' (without marking activities as completed). This prevents misinterpretation that the tool might update completion status, adding context beyond the annotations.

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, efficient sentence front-loads the purpose and the critical non-mutating trait. Every word earns its place; there is no verbiage or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., completion percentage, list of completed activities). It does not. Given the tool's simplicity, some return context and limitations are still expected for an agent to use it correctly, especially among many overlapping siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not mention course_id at all. Although the parameter name and type (integer) are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantic value, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented in prose.

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 a specific verb (consulta) and resource (own progress and completion), adding a key differentiator: it does not mark activities as completed. This distinguishes it from mutation tools. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the returned data (e.g., percentages, lists), so it is slightly vague.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_grades or list_pending_work. The only hint is that it does not mark activities, which implicitly suggests using a different tool for such actions, but this is not stated as a clear alternative or exclusion.

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