ver_tema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tool's output categories in detail, which is valuable, but it never states whether the tool has side effects, requires a configured student, or is strictly read-only. The name 'ver_tema' suggests a view operation, but the description itself does not confirm the behavioral profile.

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 one substantive sentence followed by a short, actionable usage directive. Every listed item contributes to understanding what the tool returns, and the timing instruction is front-loaded at the end without padding.

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 complex aggregation tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid inventory of returned content and a clear call-time. It does not explain output format or the relationship between parameters, but it covers the main decision-relevant context an agent needs to invoke it appropriately.

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%, and the schema already documents 'tema' and 'cedula'; 'rama' is an enum with self-explanatory values. The description adds context about the aggregate results but does little to clarify how the parameters should be combined or which combinations are valid.

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 resource (a tema or cédula) and enumerates the content returned: normas de apoyo, prerrequisitos, temas relacionados, estado del estudiante y errores anteriores. This inventory helps distinguish it from siblings like ver_material or estado_estudiante, though the description is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a direct verb statement.

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 instruction 'Llámala antes de una clase' is an explicit, practical usage trigger. It tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would be needed for a 5.

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