estado_estudiante

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status operation by saying what the tool 'Dice' (tells), and it lists the information returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or describe behavior when the student is not configured.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the entry-point directive, and every phrase earns its place by conveying either when to call the tool or what it reports. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers the main expected contents: configuration status, days remaining, phase, streak, and today's suggested session. It could add guidance for the unconfigured case (e.g., suggesting configurar_estudiante), but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete and the description need not explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter-semantics burden to carry.

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 tool's role ('PUNTO DE ENTRADA') and enumerates the status information it reports: configured state, days remaining, plan phase, streak, and suggested session. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sesion_de_hoy or progreso, but the 'entry point' framing makes its purpose clear.

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 explicitly says to call it at the beginning of every conversation ('Llámala al comenzar cada conversación'), which gives an agent clear timing guidance. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for an entry-point status tool this is sufficient context.

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