diagnostico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose what happens to unmastered vs mastered topics (focus vs repaso), but it is ambiguous whether calling this tool itself registers those outcomes or whether a later 'modo diagnostico' registration is required.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose, with no redundant filler. The parenthetical about universities adds context without bloating the text.

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?

The tool has two opaque parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose but not the meaning of the inputs or what the tool returns/registers, leaving an agent unable to call it with confidence.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter: 'rama' (civil/procesal) or 'cantidad' (4-30) are never mentioned. An agent cannot infer what 'cantidad' counts or how 'rama' affects the selection.

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 uses a specific verb ('Elige') and resource ('un tema por unidad') and adds a clear purpose ('para un diagnóstico inicial'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'elegir_temas', though the diagnostic context helps.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: choose a topic per unit for an initial diagnostic, with the most university-required topics. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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