ver_indice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two output modes, the meaning of status icons, and hints at reading student progress data. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or address auth/rate limits, but the nature as an index view makes side effects unlikely; the conditional behavior and status legend go beyond a minimal description.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose (index with states), then conditional behavior, then a clear usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a fairly complete picture: what is returned (statuses), how to adjust granularity via `rama`, and when to use it. It does not detail pagination or sorting, but for an index tool with optional params and no required fields, the essential information is covered.

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 67%, missing an explanation for `rama`. The description compensates by defining what `rama` does (without vs. with), which is absent from the schema. It also reinforces the meaning of `vista` indirectly through the 'cédula del cedulario (o tema del temario)' phrasing, adding value beyond the schema's default-only note.

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 purpose: it provides an index of contents with the mastery status of each topic, and explicitly differentiates behavior with and without the `rama` parameter. It names the resource (contenidos index) and the function (show state), and the use case ('when the student wants to choose what to study') distinguishes it from siblings like `ver_tema` or `elegir_temas`.

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 gives an explicit trigger for use: 'Úsalo cuando el estudiante quiera elegir qué estudiar.' It also explains how to choose between the two modes (with or without `rama`), which acts as usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full contrast with sibling tools.

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