preparar_exposicion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool uses the official text and the student's previous errors and produces a script with timings and rubric, but it does not say whether it mutates state, what it returns, or whether a student profile must already exist. This is useful but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and deliverables, and the use-case qualifier is placed at the end. Every clause adds information; there is 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?

The description gives a solid high-level purpose and output content, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves gaps: exact parameter mapping, return format, and prerequisites such as an existing student profile or prior error history. It is adequate but not fully self-contained for an agent.

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 description coverage is only 25%, with only minutos having a description. The description references 'cédula (o tema)' but does not explain how rama, tema, or numero identify the target cédula/topic, nor does it clarify the default behavior for each parameter. It fails to compensate for the low schema 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 names a specific verb ('Prepara') and resource ('la exposición oral de una cédula (o tema)') and lists concrete deliverables: puntos, guion con tiempos, rúbrica y errores previos. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sortear_cedula or practicar_discriminacion.

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 explicitly identifies when to use it: for universities with disertación or exposición inicial (U. Central, UDD, UDLA) or for rehearsing any cédula aloud. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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