listar_universidades

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool filters for universities with an exam profile and returns modality and cedulario status, which is good. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe any side effects, but for a listing operation this is largely implicit.

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 short sentence that states the subject and the three relevant attributes. It is front-loaded with the key resource name and contains no filler or redundant words, earning a top score for 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what is returned: university name, modality (oral/written), and cedulario status. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but these are minor for a simple listing tool and do not prevent 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds value by specifying what each listed item includes (modality and cedulario status), which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing in the description misleads or undercuts that.

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 names the resource (universities) and the specific attributes returned (exam profile loaded, modality, cedulario status), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like listar_manuales and listar_documentos. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'Lists...', so it could be more direct.

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 implies use when an agent needs to see which universities have an exam profile, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like perfil_examen or guardar_perfil_examen are not referenced, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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