list_exam_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Muestra' (shows) aligns with these hints. It adds context about the specific content (official calendars and user-configured pages/PDFs) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as whether results are paginated, whether external links are included, or whether any permissions are required beyond the read-only nature. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's modest additional context earns a 3.

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 in Spanish that front-loads the action ('Muestra') and clearly states the primary resources. There is no redundant phrasing, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that the tool takes no parameters, has no output schema, and annotations cover its read-only and idempotent nature, the description is largely complete for a basic listing operation. However, in the context of many sibling tools, it could benefit from mentioning output structure (e.g., 'returns a list of sources with titles and URLs') or specifying whether this includes only user-added items or also system defaults. Despite these minor gaps, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as per the rubric. The description does not miss any parameter-related information.

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 'Muestra calendarios oficiales integrados y páginas/PDF configuradas por el usuario' clearly identifies a verb (shows) and specific resources (official calendars and user-configured pages/PDFs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'integrated official calendars' and 'user-configured pages/PDFs', which are not explicitly referenced in other exam-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all similar siblings like list_official_exam_degrees or get_official_exam_dates, limiting clarity.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools related to exams and calendars (e.g., search_exam_dates, get_official_exam_dates, list_degree_timetables), there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead' statement. The agent must infer usage from the resource description, which is insufficient for accurate selection among many similar tools.

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