listar_manuales

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what manuals are, not what the tool does, what it returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. This is a major omission for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 very short and under-specified. It does not provide enough information to be considered appropriately concise; it is a fragment that does not convey the tool's function. Under-specification is not the same as conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide all context. It fails to explain what manuales are in this context, what the tool outputs, or how it differs from 'buscar_en_manuales' or 'agregar_manual'. This is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description has no parameter semantics to add. The schema covers 100% of parameters (none), so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to.

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 'Manuales cargados por el estudiante' is a noun phrase, not a verb phrase. It does not explicitly state the action of listing or retrieving manuals. It gives a vague resource scope but no clear verb, so an agent cannot be sure whether this returns a list, searches, or does something else. It lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings like 'buscar_en_manuales'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of alternative tools like 'buscar_en_manuales' or 'agregar_manual', and no conditions that would select this particular list operation. The agent has no context to decide between this and siblings.

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