novedades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it discloses the critical stateful trait: the first call marks everything as seen and returns the initial state, meaning it advances an internal cursor. It does not state whether subsequent calls also mutate the cursor or what happens on errors, but the most important non-obvious behavior is explicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the delta semantics and followed by the important first-run caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The description supplies the stateful delta behavior and first-run semantics. It could still clarify what counts as an 'active' materia and whether the last-check state is per-user or global, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 there is nothing for the schema or description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: it shows what changed since the last check in each active materia, and enumerates the change types (new files, forum topics with new messages). This distinguishes it from the sibling listar_* tools, which enumerate full collections rather than a delta, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to poll for updates, and use listar_archivos/listar_temas_foro for full listings. However, the description never says when not to use it or names an alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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