preview_student_action

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already cover the state-changing aspect, and the description restates this ('no la ejecuta ni cambia estado'), adding minimal value. It mentions 'permitida' (permitted) implying a permission check, but offers no further details on auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction, but the description adds little beyond 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. It is concise and well-structured, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 generic tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the action, what arguments look like, what the preview returns, or how it differs from the many specific preview_* siblings. An agent could not correctly invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 by explaining the 'function' and 'arguments' parameters. It does not mention either at all, leaving the agent with no indication of what to pass. This is a critical gap for a tool with variable arguments.

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 states the tool previews a student action and does not execute or change state, providing a verb and resource. However, it doesn't clarify what 'student action' means specifically or how this generic tool relates to the many sibling preview_* tools like preview_submit_assignment. It also omits mention of the function parameter that selects the action, leaving ambiguity about its scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this generic preview vs the specific preview_* tools or execute_student_action. The description only states behavior, not selection criteria or alternatives, so an agent cannot decide when to invoke this tool.

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