grado_generar_cedula

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the composed output (questions, linked norms, doctrine, rubric), which is the main behavioral trait for a generation tool, but omits anything about scope limits, determinism, jurisdiction assumptions, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first and the output inventory follows compactly. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the four components of the generated cédula, giving the agent a reasonable picture of the return value. It stops short of full completeness because constraints on topics or output size remain unspecified.

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?

There is a single parameter 'tema' with 100% schema description coverage, including example values ('Obligaciones', 'Responsabilidad', 'Posesión', 'Recursos'). The description adds nothing about granularity or format beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('genera') and a concrete, domain-specific resource ('cédula completa de examen de grado'), and enumerates the artifacts it produces (preguntas, normas vinculadas, doctrina canónica, pauta de evaluación). This clearly separates it from retrieval-oriented siblings like bcn_get_ley or doctrina_search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings grado_interrogar and grado_obtener_flashcards.

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 says what the tool produces but gives no indication of when to reach for it versus grado_interrogar or grado_obtener_flashcards, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a topic must map to a known legal area). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and output list.

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