progreso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the returned data categories, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query, whether it depends on a configured student, or how it behaves when no progress data exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of concrete data elements. Every word adds information and there is no redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only report, the description covers the main output categories an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It could mention that it refers to the currently configured student or define the recency of 'errores recientes', but the core content is adequately specified.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies; the description instead clarifies the meaning of the tool by listing what the progress report contains.

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 identifies the resource ('Avance del estudiante') and enumerates specific content: mastery by unit, mock history, forgotten topics, recent errors, and streak. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like estado_estudiante or diagnostico, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'obtener' or 'consultar'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related tools such as estado_estudiante, diagnostico, or sesion_de_hoy. The content list implies a progress-report use case, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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