sesion_de_hoy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ordering behavior and the constraint of available minutes, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this tool modifies state (e.g., marks reviews as done), whether it requires prior configuration, or what happens if no reviews/topics are pending. The description is honest but incomplete on 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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the prioritization order. It's concise and structured, though the long parenthetical list makes it slightly harder to parse quickly. No wasted words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior: what to study and in what order. However, it lacks information about the return value (what the agent should do with the result), whether it mutates state, and edge cases like no pending items. Given the tool's role as a session planner, this is a moderate gap.

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 100% for the single parameter 'minutos', and the description adds context by explaining it's the available minutes today if they differ from usual. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic description, but the parameter is optional and simple, so the added value is modest.

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 the tool's function: it determines what to study today, prioritizing overdue reviews, new topics, and mock exams within available minutes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like elegir_temas or plan_estudio by focusing on the daily session composition, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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: at the start of a study session to get the day's agenda. It explains the prioritization logic (overdue reviews first, then new topics, then mock exams) and mentions the optional 'minutos' parameter for adjusting to available time. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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