ver_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key retrieval behavior (list vs. filtered by tema vs. by id), but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens when both params are supplied, or what the return shape is. For a simple view tool this is acceptable but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The three modes are listed compactly. It loses a point because the noun-phrase style omits the verb and reads more like a fragment than a full instruction.

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 covers the main calling patterns (no args, tema, id) and is probably sufficient for basic invocation. It is incomplete for a no-output-schema tool because it does not describe the returned material structure or handle the both-parameters case, though those are minor for a simple view operation.

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 only 50%: 'tema' has a description, 'id' does not. The description maps both parameters to modes ('el de un tema' and 'uno por id'), adding some meaning, but it never clarifies that 'id' is a saved-material id or whether the params are mutually exclusive.

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 ('saved material') and enumerates the three access modes: full list, by tema, or by id. It lacks an explicit verb ('view/get'), relying on the tool name 'ver_material', and does not contrast with siblings such as ver_tema, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like ver_tema or ver_indice, no exclusions, and no mention of the save-workflow context (e.g., 'use after guardar_material'). The word 'guardado' implies saved-material context, but that is not enough to count as explicit usage guidance.

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