sortear_cedula

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains the default 'una por ramo' rule and the probabilistic effect of prioridad 'debiles', but it does not state whether the tool returns the selected cédulas, persists anything, or has side effects. Some behavior is transparent, but key execution semantics remain implicit.

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 long, front-loads the main action, and avoids redundant filler. Every sentence adds information: the first defines what is drawn and the default, the second clarifies the special priority behavior.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits the return value shape and how `numero` and `ejercicio` interact with the random draw. An agent could invoke it, but not with complete certainty about the outcome.

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 50%, and the description compensates for the two undocumented parameters: it explains `rama`'s default behavior and the meaning of `prioridad` = 'debiles'. The other two parameters, `numero` and `ejercicio`, are already described in the schema, so the description adds meaningful value without fully covering everything.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sortea cédulas para un simulacro', and immediately defines the source ('según el cedulario de la universidad') and the default selection rule ('una por ramo si no se indica rama'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like elegir_temas or registrar_simulacro.

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 phrase 'para un simulacro' gives clear contextual guidance about when to invoke the tool. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not level, but the intended context is understandable.

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