agregar_manual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the PDF stays on the computer and only its text is saved for local search, and it warns about scanned PDFs without text. This provides valuable transparency about side effects and limitations. It does not cover permissions or overwrite behavior, but the disclosed points are significant and beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, then adds two crucial constraints. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 straightforward add operation with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core function, the storage behavior, and a critical limitation. It does not mention return values or whether the operation can overwrite existing manuals, but for a basic indexing tool, an agent can reasonably understand when to call it and what to expect. Minor gaps remain, but not severe.

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 only 20% (only ruta is described). The tool description adds context about the operation but does not explain the meaning or usage of anio, rama, autor, or titulo beyond the schema. While it implies ruta and titulo are central, it does not clarify optional parameters. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the verb (indexa) and resource (manual en PDF del propio estudiante) and explains its purpose (buscar y citar con página). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like buscar_en_manuales, listar_manuales, and quitar_manual by indicating it is the addition operation. No ambiguity about what it does.

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 gives a clear context: use when you want to index a student's PDF manual for search/citation. It also provides a constraint (scanned PDFs without text don't work), which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some inference needed. It is implied but not stated.

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