List uploaded study documents for Chilean bar exam prep, including regulations, past exams, and guidelines. Filter by type to quickly find relevant materials.
Documentos que el estudiante ha cargado (cedularios, reglamentos, exámenes anteriores, pautas).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tipo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, how results are returned, or how the 'tipo' parameter affects behavior. The description only names the content, omitting any behavioral traits.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, though this is a structural strength in terms of brevity.
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 is simple (list with optional filter), but the description is incomplete: it fails to explain the parameter, provide usage context, or mention any filtering behavior. Without an output schema, it should at least clarify what the tool returns and how the optional parameter works. The absence of such details makes the description inadequate 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 description does not explain the 'tipo' parameter at all. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description merely lists document categories without linking them to the parameter. This leaves the parameter's meaning and usage entirely unspecified.
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 what the tool lists: documents uploaded by the student, with examples (cedularios, reglamentos, exámenes anteriores, pautas). The verb 'list' is implied by the tool name and description, and the resource is specific. It differentiates from sibling tools like listar_manuales by focusing on student-uploaded documents rather than manuals.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listar_manuales or buscar_en_manuales. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.