practicar_plazos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses two useful traits: questions are verified against the current Ley Chile text, and the answer is included but must be hidden ('no la muestres hasta que el estudiante conteste'). It also reveals the prioritization behavior. It does not detail side effects or output format, so this is strong but not complete.

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 short and each clause earns its place: topic, verification source, prioritization, and the answer-withholding rule. There is no filler, and the agent-facing instruction is stated directly.

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 quiz tool with no output schema, the description explains the core loop (ask a question, withhold the answer, wait for the student) and the content source, which is enough to invoke it safely. It omits concrete output shape and how the student's answer should be handled afterward, so an agent still has to infer part of the contract.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'tema' has a description), and the description adds only a weak link to 'temas ya vistos y débiles'. It does not explain 'rama' (civil/procesal) or 'cantidad' (1–15) beyond the schema's own enum/limits, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 legal-deadline questions ('Preguntas de plazos legales') and specifies their source ('verificados contra el texto vigente de Ley Chile'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling practice tools like practicar_discriminacion, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.

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 when to use it—for quizzing a student on legal deadlines, with automatic focus on 'temas ya vistos y débiles'. However, it never names alternatives such as practicar_discriminacion or preparar_exposicion, nor states when not to use them, so the guidance is only implicit.

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