Generate a complete study plan leading to the exam, with phases, deadlines, pending topics, daily pace, and warnings if time runs short.
Plan completo hasta el examen: fases con fechas, temas vistos/pendientes, ritmo necesario de temas nuevos por día y advertencia si no alcanza el tiempo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by specifying what the plan includes and the existence of a warning when time is insufficient, but it does not disclose whether the tool reads or modifies stored state, requires prerequisites, or has side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs all key deliverables without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains no 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 no-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it enumerates the plan's components, which serves as the return-value information in the absence of an output schema. However, it does not mention what stored data the plan relies on (e.g., exam date, current progress), which is a minor gap given the tool's role.
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 and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the baseline rule for no-parameter tools, the description adequately covers the behavior without parameter details.
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 that the tool produces a complete study plan up to the exam, listing concrete output components: phases with dates, seen/pending topics, required pace of new topics per day, and a warning if time is insufficient. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnostico (assessment) and progreso (progress tracking), which serve different purposes.
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 intended usage—when a user needs a study plan—is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sesion_de_hoy or diagnostico. No exclusions or conditional directives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.