elegir_temas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior ('los temas elegidos pasan primero en la sesión de hoy') and lists valid value formats. However, it does not mention persistence, validation, or the mutating effects beyond what the schema's quitar/agregar/limpiar names imply.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then immediately provides concrete accepted formats. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, behavioral effect, and value formats well. The main gaps are whether the same formats apply to quitar as well as agregar, and whether changes persist beyond today's session, but the schema and parameter names cover the basics.

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 33% (limpiar is described). The description adds valuable format examples for the string values, but it never explicitly maps those formats to agregar versus quitar, nor does it explain array semantics. It partially compensates for the low coverage 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 states a specific verb ('elige') and resource ('qué contenidos quiere ver'), and clarifies the behavioral effect: chosen topics pass first in today's session. It also enumerates the accepted input formats, making the tool's role distinct from sibling tools like ver_tema or plan_estudio.

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 clear context: use this when the student wants to prioritize certain content in today's session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the stated purpose is enough to route an agent toward the correct sibling.

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